Unpopular Opinions

[IWantCandy71]

Oh, ICAM think most of the credit goes to Tom H for Loki's appeal. In the hands of a lesser actor, he could have been a mustache twirling villain. Although, I think thus far the writers have done a pretty decent job of making him complex and interesting.

[slf]

On 10/31/2016 at 9:22 AM, IWantCandy71 said:

What excuse did Thor have for wanting to slay all the Frost Giants in the first Thor movie? He was basically a racist- that's exactly what he was. He hated the Frost Giants mainly because he'd heard Odin's opinions of them his whole life, as did Loki. Loki has done horrible things, but at least when he went to Earth to try and rule it, he wasn't intending on slaying the entire race of humans. What would be the point of that, when there would be no one left to rule? Thor specifically went to murder the Frost Giants. There's a lot about Thor people tend to overlook because he's supposed to be a "good" guy, and a lot people refuse to acknowledge about Loki because he's supposed to be a bad guy.

So a couple of things. Thor did not want to slay all the Frost Giants, Thor wanted to invade and "break their spirits" which is bad enough. It's fanon, usually from Loki fans, that Thor wanted to commit genocide against the Jotuns. In fact it was Loki who attempted this toward the end of the film by opening the Bifrost. Heimdall told them at the beginning of the movie that keeping the Bifrost open, sustaining it, would destroy Jotunheim. Loki attempted genocide against the Jotuns, not Thor. And I will absolutely not give Loki an "at least" because, when he invaded a world with the intent of slaughtering and mind-raping anyone who opposed him to force their entire world into submission, he wasn't going to also commit genocide. 

Thor had no excuse, because there's no possible way to excuse Thor's actions. Loki baited the Frost Giants and gave them unlawful access to Asgard, to the most dangerous place in all of Asgard: the weapons vault, and when they entered they immediately killed several Asgardians and they died as well. This plot played on the best of Thor (his protectiveness w/r/t his people and realm) and the worst of Thor (his impulsiveness and his bigotry). That this happened is not overlooked by the fandom. I've been a part of this fandom since the first film came out, briefly ran a fan blog for it, have been to countless (and I do mean countless) blogs and forums to discuss this character and the movies. I have also discussed this character across various social media platforms. Thor's past always comes up and is discussed with great enthusiasm because it's a part of his arc that we feel is very important. It's what makes Thor layered and not some perfect hero who never makes mistakes. Thor was a raging asshole. He was capable of great kindness and loyalty, obviously, but he was also capable of great darkness too. He disobeyed his king and was willing to start a war when one wasn't needed, a war that would've gotten a lot of people killed. So Odin (and the film) rightly called him vain, greedy, selfish, arrogant, stupid, cruel, and unworthy. Odin stripped Thor of his titles, effectively disowning him, and banished him from his homeworld. Odin also enchanted Thor's hammer that if anyone became worthy they would have "the power of Thor", i.e. Mjolnir would act as a judge of Thor's character. Thor was forgiven by the fans because he tried. He was humbled and he learned to respect and appreciate different peoples, to think before he acted, to be willing to fight and even die to protect others and not just to pursue glory and power. He prevented the destruction of Jotunheim. Thor became worthy again and earned his second chance. He chose to try, he chose to learn, and he chose to be better*. And he keeps choosing to be better. Thor is a good guy.

Loki is a bad guy. That he didn't try to commit genocide against humans doesn't change that. He did invaded their world, he did murder humans, he did invade people's minds and control them. He chose to be a bad guy. He continues to chose to be a bad guy. I'm not overlooking good things he may have done. But the occasional good deed mixed in with a ton of bad ones doesn't make you a good person. Loki can have redemption but he has to actually try for it.

*I don't believe he needed to pay further for what he did with the Frost Giants. Loki gave them an option, they made the choice to use it. Laufey wanted a fight, he got one; Jotuns died and so did Asgardians. 

Quote

 

And I wouldn't say his only justification is "daddy" issues. This is someone who grew up hearing that Frost Giants were to be hated, that they were horrible, monsters, enemies, etc. He was never allowed to know who he really was, until and unless Odin decided the time was right. He wasn't even taken by Odin because he was wanted, he was taken to possibly be used as a future political tool. Who do you know, if they learned that who they were, was something to be depised and hated, who had the same kind of background, would NOT become destructive and possibly psychotic? I see Loki's issues as self fulfilling prophecy. If you tell a child they are bad, they are going to be bad. And no, Odin didn't tell Loki HE was bad, but Odin instilled in Thor and Loki,  hatred for Loki's true race. What kind of sorry piece of excuse of a person DOES that to a child? Never mind that Odin also kept telling both boys they were born to be kings, but only one of them could be. 

 

Loki absolutely was a victim of Odin's cruel scheming (Odin is a truly complex character and the history between the Asgardians and Frost Giants is not simple at all) as well as Asgardian bigotry. He grew up believing the Jotuns were monsters and then found out he was one. He also learned his father rescued him with the intent of sending him back to Jotunheim to lead as an agent of Odin. That's terrible, truly. He absolutely was entitled to rage at Odin and to make any decision regarding a relationship with him. But the idea that he would have any kind of justification is absurd to me. That is "makes sense" that he would become destructive and possibly psychotic is mind-boggling. Plenty of people have been raised to believe that were white only to find out they are mixed race (I recall reading about one man who was raised believing he was white only to find out he had a black father and how incredibly difficult it was for him since he'd been raised in a racist household). Plenty of people grow up in incredibly bigoted, violently bigoted, societies where they internalize that hatred of themselves. And these people? Pretty much don't go off the rails, at all, much less like Loki did. Being the thing that everyone hates does not turn you into a psychopath. Like we have actual real-world examples of what happens when you're raised hearing you're bad, less than, and the result isn't Loki. It's not natural, reasonable, or even really understandable. This also ignores that some of Loki's issues, such as his willingness to play with other people's minds which is a huge violation, predates learning he's a Jotun. He didn't know he was a Jotun when he decided to risk war, he didn't know he was a Jotun when he let Jotuns into Asgard and got several Asgardians killed. But he was, like Thor, a spoiled brat. Until that point in Loki's life his biggest problem was that Thor was more popular, every loves Thor more, "Thor Thor Thor"; Loki the eternal Jan to Thor's Marsha. From the time he was brought into Asgard he held more social, economic, and political power than 99% of the people around him and had abilities far and above what other's had. And he did not hesitate to use any of that. I recall a scene from the first film, sadly cut for time, (check out the woobifying in the comments!) where Loki and Thor are talking to each other, waiting to be announced at Thor's ceremony. Thor had walked in and smashed his wine cup into a fire and bellowed for more. When the servant brings Thor another cup Thor is teasing Loki about his abilities. The servant, vastly outranked by his Prince and future King, naturally laughs. Loki cuts his eyes at the servant and transforms the wine into snakes, scaring the man. It's petty. Like, the guy's a servant. He's playing the part all servants play. Let it go. But no, Loki's wittle ego. The guy was petty and manipulative and willing to kill people and get them killed long before he found out about his dad's scheme or his own parentage.

Quote

However, in the Marvel verse, the "good" guys really aren't all that good, and most are so self righteous, I can't really care what he does to them, either. Thor to me especially, is just so unbearably bland and holier than thou. Can you imagine those people without someone like Loki around to humble them a bit? I can't. Those movies are made brighter by the presence of someone like Loki. Without him, it would just be: super perfect "good guys" beat some horrible enemy. Wash, rinse, repeat. Like Loki or not, he brings much needed color to this universe. And I don't see Loki as a villain-but he's also not a hero, either. Yet-not sure he fits "anti-hero"(except for maybe in Thor II). I haven't figured him out yet, and I like that, because IMO he's one of the only characters in this verse with TRUE layers. Except for perhaps Tony Stark and Fury. Everyone else in this verse bores me to death.

Loki isn't humbling people, he's invading their minds and controlling them, abusing them, murdering people. And I'm not sure how people like Thor can possibly be considered "super perfect good guys" when, as you said, Thor is capable of bigotry and murder. Loki is the very definition of wash, rinse, repeat, however. He's more or less had the same trajectory since the first film. I believe even Tom Hiddleston has said he hopes that the writers try to redeem Loki rather than continue to have him be the villain because it was repetitious. So Loki is a villain so long as he chooses to be one, as he has chosen for three films. Occasionally doing something that might benefit others when he's only doing it to sate his own interests or needs isn't really being an anti-hero. It's not layered, in my opinion. Doing something good to do something good, that would give him layers. Just as Thor's dark past gives him layers.

Quote

Loki has always been a trickster, always been manipulative, cunning, clever-and he's done horrible things. But in what way, shape or form, is Loki being banished to a dungeon for eternity/the rest of his life, and Thor getting a punishment of a few days, remotely equal?  Most *normal* people would probably have psychological issues over that, and Loki isn't normal. Besides...if Thor can get a respite/forgiveness for simply putting his life on the line, where is Loki's respite for putting his life on the line for Jane and Thor? Yes, we know he didn't die-but Loki didn't know he wouldn't, when he did what he did to help them.

Thor's punishment would've lasted as long as it needed to; that it didn't need to go one for years speaks to Thor's true character. That Loki has been pulling this shit for years speaks to his. And Thor did not "simply" put his life on the line, whatever that means, he saved two worlds, one of which was Jotunheim. Loki was responsible for the Jotun invasion of Asgard which resulted in the loss of Asgardian lives, he participated in the assault on Jotunheim, he stole from the Allfather and attacked Heimdall, he attempted to kill his brother and several humans by launching attacks on Midgard, he attempted to destroy all of Jotunheim and commit genocide against the Jotuns, he attempted to conquer and enslave Midgard, and he murdered and mind-raped countless humans. Odin would have released Loki if he at any point showed he was going to stop being a homicidal asshole. But Loki didn't and doesn't want to. He feels entitled to behave this way.

Many Loki fans seem to think it's unfair that Thor isn't continuing to be punished and Loki is, which is weird because Thor isn't continuing to be an asshole and Loki is. So the problem is that Thor isn't being disproportionately punished? Because Loki has, indisputably, done far more fucked up things and for far longer. So why should Thor pay just as much? If Loki wants to humble himself, learn a thing or two, get his head screwed on right, sort out his issues, then he can come and sit at the Grown-Ups Who Learn and Try table. But if he's going to keep stomping around the cosmos slaughtering people and trying to take over worlds then he can go fuck himself. Honestly.

[NumberCruncher]

1 hour ago, slf said:

Many Loki fans seem to think it's unfair that Thor isn't continuing to be punished and Loki is, which is weird because Thor isn't continuing to be an asshole and Loki is. So the problem is that Thor isn't being disproportionately punished? Because Loki has, indisputably, done far more fucked up things and for far longer. So why should Thor pay just as much? If Loki wants to humble himself, learn a thing or two, get his head screwed on right, sort out his issues, then he can come and sit at the Grown-Ups Who Learn and Try table. But if he's going to keep stomping around the cosmos slaughtering people and trying to take over worlds then he can go fuck himself. Honestly.

I would say that's overstating things.  Some may feel this way, but most?  Nah.  I think Loki fans aren't afraid to admit that he's an asshole.  I'm certainly not.  But I do see why some of them can relate to him on some level re: the double standards and favoritism that Odin applied to his two sons.  Anyone who has been in a real-life family situation can appreciate the dynamic that the Odin Family has portrayed and sympathize with Loki being lied to and treated as "lesser than" because those things happen all. the. time.  What I do think happens is that people are quick to label people who sympathize with Loki's shitty family situation (i.e. the favoritism, the betrayals, the lies, etc.) as somehow justifying his unacceptable reactions to them...which they don't.  People are capable of feeling sorry for a character like Loki and thinking that he got a raw deal without finding his subsequent actions since finding out the truth about his heritage justifiable.

As for your wish for him to go away from the Thor movies, well, that would make them incredibly boring for me.   I love the brotherly Thor/Loki dynamic and the way Loki connives to cause chaos.  He's just the kind of villain I want to see in the MCU--one that has actual depth and motivation for being evil (and sometimes good when there's a bigger fish to fry).  I don't expect his mayhem to prevail in the end, just as I don't expect Thanos to win once The Infinity Wars conclude and I wouldn't want him to.  I just want to be entertained--which I am when I see him on my screen.  As I said before, I know that's not a popular thing on these boards but this is the UO thread after all. ;)

[IWantCandy71]

• Quote

  As for your wish for him to go away from the Thor movies, well, that would make them incredibly boring for me.   I love the brotherly Thor/Loki dynamic and the way Loki connives to cause chaos

  Loki is the only reason the Thor movies are interesting. 

• As far as Loki being a bad guy or not being a bad guy, who cares? I don't watch these movies because I need to be taught a moral lesson. I watch them for entertainment, therefore I am going to gravitate towards the characters that do that for me. I personally have the ability to separate the actions from the person. I consider most of Loki's actions bad-although he had nothing to gain by saving boring Jane and Thor. It WAS a selfless act to put himself in harm's way for them, not that it really matters one way or the other.

• For me however, bad actions don't make the PERSON bad, just like good actions don't make the PERSON good.  It actually took most of my adult life to finalize realize that all people, to varying degrees, are capable of both good and bad. People are gray, actions are not. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. And I like the characters best who show they are capable of both good and bad(which IMO Loki, Erik Lensherr, and lot of my other faves are) because they ARE the most "human" and relatable. Doesn't mean I approve of, condone, or cheer them on when they are wreaking havoc, because I don't. I can't really stand most of the Avengers, but I didn't want Loki to win against them, because his actions were wrong. Just means I love him in spite of it, and I make zero apologies for that love.

Edited November 2, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[slf]

2 hours ago, NumberCruncher said:

 What I do think happens is that people are quick to label people who sympathize with Loki's shitty family situation (i.e. the favoritism, the betrayals, the lies, etc.) as somehow justifying his unacceptable reactions to them...which they don't.  People are capable of feeling sorry for a character like Loki and thinking that he got a raw deal without finding his subsequent actions since finding out the truth about his heritage justifiable.

That happens because a lot of Loki fans do that, though. People make arguments detailing how they see Loki and when they aren't stressing that they aren't  ignoring his misconduct they're actually making excuses. I mean I commonly come across people who say he isn't even the villain. (Heck there are several in that comments section on the YT vid I linked to in my response). I used to run a fandom blog on Tumblr where Loki was featured prominently and the way fans talked about him is the number one reason I stopped. I appreciate that people are capable of feeling sorry for a character without excusing his actions? I know, I'm one of them. But a lot of fans aren't. Loki is the Thor fandom's white guy who is a violent asshole that a lot of people make excuses for, like Littlefinger and Jaime Lannister on GOT or Shane on The Walking Dead.

Quote

I don't watch these movies because I need to be taught a moral lesson. I watch them for entertainment, therefore I am going to gravitate towards the characters that do that for me.

Something we can both agree on, @IWantCandy71. The Thor movies are pure entertainment for me, which is why I love Thor so much. His sense of humor, Chris Hemsworth's comedic timing, etc. 

Edited November 2, 2016 by slf

[IWantCandy71]

Quote

come across people who say he isn't even the villain

In TDW, he wasn't the villain. Hence my and others opinion that he can be a villain, or anti hero, or something undefinable/in between. And I'll just say it-I really don't get this obsession with labeling characters, anyway. Furthermore, if a viewer WANTS to slap a label on a character, and that label doesn't fit with the general consensus-if it doesn't even make any sense-so what? It is that person's right to think what they think. No matter how nonsensical it might seem to others. I've seen people mocked because they simply have a take on a character that goes against the grain.

I call that cyber bullying, myself. It annoys me. I don't have to understand why someone likes a character, or why they justify, or refuse to justify, that character's actions. Who they like and why they like them is their own business, and while I don't have to agree, I do try to respect them.

[NumberCruncher]

3 minutes ago, slf said:

That happens because a lot of Loki fans do that, though. People make arguments detailing how they see Loki and when they aren't stressing that they aren't  ignoring his misconduct they're actually making excuses. I mean I commonly come across people who say he isn't even the villain. (Heck there are several in that comments section on the YT vid I linked to in my response). I used to run a fandom blog on Tumblr where Loki was featured prominently and the way fans talked about him is the number one reason I stopped. I appreciate that people are capable of feeling sorry for a character without excusing his actions? I know, I'm one of them. But a lot of fans aren't. Loki is the Thor fandom's white guy who is a violent asshole that a lot of people make excuses for, like Littlefinger and Jaime Lannister on GOT or Shane on The Walking Dead.

Maybe some on Tumblr yes, but then again, they make up only a fraction of the overall MCU fanbase.  If you read through reactions elsewhere it's a very different situation.  I don't deny that some fans do make the arguments you claim.  My issue was with your original assertion that "most" do and I strongly disagree.  No fanbase fits into a tidy box as to why they like/dislike any given character based on what some people on Tumblr might say.

[slf]

10 minutes ago, IWantCandy71 said:

In TDW, he wasn't the villain. Hence my and others opinion that he can be a villain, or anti hero, or something undefinable/in between. And I'll just say it-I really don't get this obsession with labeling characters, anyway. Furthermore, if a viewer WANTS to slap a label on a character, and that label doesn't fit with the general consensus-if it doesn't even make any sense-so what? It is that person's right to think what they think. No matter how nonsensical it might seem to others. I've seen people mocked because they simply have a take on a character that goes against the grain.

I call that cyber bullying, myself. It annoys me. I don't have to understand why someone likes a character, or why they justify, or refuse to justify, that character's actions. Who they like and why they like them is their own business, and while I don't have to agree, I do try to respect them.

He was the villain in the first movie and in The Avengers movie.

It's....absolutely someone's right to think what they want? Never said it wasn't. But, y'know a lot of people are uncomfortable with how killer white guys are being talked about and portrayed which is equally valid. This conversation is happening everywhere about so many tv shows and movies so I know I don't need to explain it to anyone.

And I don't see how it's cyber bullying to disagree with someone saying that a mass murderer is not a villain. Lord.

@NumberCruncher ...where did I say "most"?

Quote

 If you read through reactions elsewhere it's a very different situation. 

I have, actually, forum boards, the comments section on movie sites, various blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I've been in this fandom from the jump.

Edited November 2, 2016 by slf

[NumberCruncher]

3 minutes ago, slf said:

 

@NumberCruncher ...where did I say "most"?

I read your original post of "many" as "most".  Honest mistake and I apologize.  My point still stands, however, that generalizing the motivations of an entire fanbase based on one blog isn't cool.  People talk about Loki fans, Bucky fans, etc., like they're delusional psychos on these boards just because they disagree with them without realizing that rational people can like characters for many different reasons.

[slf]

Just now, NumberCruncher said:

I read your original post of "many" as "most".  Honest mistake and I apologize.  My point still stands, however, that generalizing the motivations of an entire fanbase based on one blog isn't cool.  People talk about Loki fans, Bucky fans, etc., like they're delusional psychos on these boards just because they disagree with them without realizing that rational people can like characters for many different reasons.

People who take a wary approach to Loki/Bucky/Jaime Lannister/whoever fans don't fail to realize that rational people can like characters for many different reasons, their approach is generally due to actual bad experiences with those fans and reading/hearing 'non-defenses' that are actually defenses. People who do that tend not to be very upfront about doing that. We're going to have to just agree to disagree here.

[NumberCruncher]

3 minutes ago, slf said:

People who take a wary approach to Loki/Bucky/Jaime Lannister/whoever fans don't fail to realize that rational people can like characters for many different reasons, their approach is generally due to actual bad experiences with those fans and reading/hearing 'non-defenses' that are actually defenses. People who do that tend not to be very upfront about doing that. We're going to have to just agree to disagree here.

Yet I see those fans being the ones judged and excoriated in these forums. Look, I don't want to argue anymore about it either and clearly you've had some experiences that have influenced your particular viewpoint but I think a good rule of thumb is generally accept that people don't always see the same things you do in characters and leave it at that--even if their beliefs offend your definition of what's good, bad, or anything in between.  I think that's why this thread exists in the first place.

[slf]

6 minutes ago, NumberCruncher said:

Yet I see those fans being the ones judged and excoriated in these forums. Look, I don't want to argue anymore about it either and clearly you've had some experiences that have influenced your particular viewpoint but I think a good rule of thumb is generally accept that people don't always see the same things you do in characters and leave it at that--even if their beliefs offend your definition of what's good, bad, or anything in between.  I think that's why this thread exists in the first place.

Okay, I was just responding to someone else's post clarifying how other people see Loki and Thor, since that was in fact a large part of that person's post and this thread has a healthy amount of back and forth. I'm not going to keep saying "yes, I GET how people don't see the same character the same way" over and over and over and over and over and over and over. You get it or you don't.

Here's an indisputably unpopular opinion: Emma Thompson doesn't work for me more often than she does. I swear sometimes I can see her thinking about the dialogue.

Edited November 2, 2016 by slf

[IWantCandy71]

1 hour ago, slf said:

He was the villain in the first movie and in The Avengers movie.

It's....absolutely someone's right to think what they want? Never said it wasn't. But, y'know a lot of people are uncomfortable with how killer white guys are being talked about and portrayed which is equally valid. This conversation is happening everywhere about so many tv shows and movies so I know I don't need to explain it to anyone.

And I don't see how it's cyber bullying to disagree with someone saying that a mass murderer is not a villain. Lord.

@NumberCruncher ...where did I say "most"?

I have, actually, forum boards, the comments section on movie sites, various blogs, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I've been in this fandom from the jump.

Disagreeing about something is one thing. Making remarks like " honestly" and "Lord", are rude and inappropriate.  But I get the feeling you already know that.  

[Athena]

Maybe it's time to take a break from this Thor and Marvel discussion. If you feel you've said your thoughts once or twice, it's enough for now. If you would like to continue this discussion, please move it back to Thor 2 or Marvel Universe threads. Even if you feel your opinion is not the most popular, you can still engage in civil discussion in the designated threads. Thank you.

[slf]

I didn't think Mean Girls was that funny. I laughed a few times, sure, but for the most part...eh. It's a lot better than pretty much any other 'teen movie' released from 2000-now, certainly, but I don't think it's iconic. I feel the same way about Easy A; while Stone works better for me than Lohan does the humor fell flat except for some of the parents' teens. The "iconic" scene of Stone opening and closing the musical greeting card grates like a motherclucker. The only teen movie from the aughts that I've really liked was Bring It On.

I think the 80s and 90s were better for teen (and children's, especially children's) movies. I rewatched Clueless last night and basically chuckled for two hours. Silverstone is so charming and had great timing with her line deliveries (and I still think some of her outfits are really cute).

[Silver Raven]

4 minutes ago, slf said:

I think the 80s and 90s were better for teen (and children's, especially children's) movies. I rewatched Clueless last night and basically chuckled for two hours. Silverstone is so charming and had great timing with her line deliveries (and I still think some of her outfits are really cute).

I can't believe that Edge of Seventeen is a "teen movie" but it's rated R.

[Wiendish Fitch]

I'll take Heathers over Mean Girls any day. Mean Girls is so wimpy and toothless.

How pathetic is it that I'm a 34-year-old woman, and I think Zootopia is the best movie of 2016?

I consider myself a feminist, but I'm completely unbothered by 1939's The Women. 

I think Something New was Hollywood's last truly decent romantic comedy. Sanaa Lathan and Simon Baker are just too cute and pretty together.

[slf]

12 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

I can't believe that Edge of Seventeen is a "teen movie" but it's rated R.

Gotta love teen movies that a lot of teens won't be able to get into the theater to see. Heathers was R rated but Heathers is one of those teen movies that's actually made for young adults (and earned its rating). Edge of Seventeen, from what I hear, lacks the bite and darkness of a Heathers and is a lot closer to Juno which was a PG13 film IIRC.

[ribboninthesky1]

1 hour ago, slf said:

The only teen movie from the aughts that I've really liked was Bring It On.

Ha! This movie is highly entertaining.  

I've liked Lindsey Lohan, but I never understood all of the hand-wringing over her wasted potential when she started downhill.  I never thought she was meant to be some groundbreaking actress.  Even without her personal problems, I doubt her career would have survived beyond the early 00s.  But that's hindsight more than foresight, I suppose.

Another topic: even when I was a child, I usually avoided "coming-of-age" films.  To this day, I can't abide the genre.  

Edited November 11, 2016 by ribboninthesky1

[slf]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I'll take Heathers over Mean Girls any day. Mean Girls is so wimpy and toothless.

How pathetic is it that I'm a 34-year-old woman, and I think Zootopia is the best movie of 2016?

I consider myself a feminist, but I'm completely unbothered by 1939's The Women. 

I think Something New was Hollywood's last truly decent romantic comedy. Sanaa Lathan and Simon Baker are just too cute and pretty together.

Yes, wimpy! Excellent way to describe that movie. There's nothing pathetic about loving Zootopia, it had a lot of humor, intelligence, and heart. There's a reason it made a gajillion dollars. Haven't watched Something New but I'm going to give it a shot since this is liked the fifth time I've read something positive about it this week; I've already got another Lathan movie on my 'to watch' list, Love and Basketball, so I'll probably make a night of it. 

9 minutes ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

Another topic: even when I was a child, I usually avoided "coming-of-age" films.  To this day, I can't abide the genre.  

Huh. I've never really thought about that genre. What kinds of movies would be defined as 'coming of age'?

I HATE any movie that's about some sad-sack white guy in his 20s/30s/40s where that is literally all the movie is about. "Meet Paul. Paul is a 35 year old slack-faced white guy. He's disillusioned by life, meaningless small talk, and intimate relationships." Oh boy that sure does sound interesting.[/sarcasm]

[Wiendish Fitch]

"Coming of age" movies are too easy to screw up and make preachy and/or banal. They only work if they have a genuinely compelling story and a solid character arc. My Mt. Rushmore of great "coming of age" films are To Kill a Mockingbird, The Man in the Moon, Whisper of the Heart, and The Trouble with Angels.

[Joe]

2 hours ago, slf said:

I HATE any movie that's about some sad-sack white guy in his 20s/30s/40s where that is literally all the movie is about. "Meet Paul. Paul is a 35 year old slack-faced white guy. He's disillusioned by life, meaningless small talk, and intimate relationships." Oh boy that sure does sound interesting.[/sarcasm]

I have no idea what movies you're talking about, but I agree that they sound incredibly dull. Movies are classified as entertainment, right? Give me something entertaining.

[ribboninthesky1]

3 hours ago, slf said:

Huh. I've never really thought about that genre. What kinds of movies would be defined as 'coming of age'?

Probably the most well-known is Stand by Me.  Love the song, but don't remotely care about the movie. Probably most of John Hughes' films, which again, I've never cared about and didn't define me. Here's a list of others that may be considered part of the genre.    

[kiddo82]

9 hours ago, ribboninthesky1 said:

Probably the most well-known is Stand by Me.  Love the song, but don't remotely care about the movie. Probably most of John Hughes' films, which again, I've never cared about and didn't define me.

Like the Breakfast Club.  Ugh.  

[raezen]

3 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

Like the Breakfast Club.  Ugh.  

I sat through a health class once that made us watch The Breakfast Club . 

[Wiendish Fitch]

41 minutes ago, raezen said:

I sat through a health class once that made us watch The Breakfast Club . 

Yeah, because those losers were such healthy role models.

I can't stand The Breakfast Club. I wanted nothing more than to bitch slap each and every one of those mealy-mouthed, snot-nosed, navel-gazing whiners.

[Shannon L.]

1 hour ago, raezen said:

I sat through a health class once that made us watch The Breakfast Club . 

Health class? What was their reasoning?

I loved The Breakfast Club as a teenager, but now I can't sit through it. 

[Crs97]

I have found my people!  I have always loathed Breakfast Club, and I was their age when it came out.  I remember everyone just gushing over this movie until I finally lost it at a party and gave my biting review.  They were stunned.  "My parents loved me too much.  Mine didn't love me enough.  My parents ignored me.  My parents paid too much attention to me . . ."  AAUUGGHH!  I will not put myself through the torture of seeing that film ever again.

[raezen]

The teacher gave us an assignment about analyzing teen characters for self-esteem and,,,stuff. It's been 20 years and I'm pretty sure now that they just wanted to show a movie and have a class without any teaching on their part. I didn't complain because my mark was pretty good because I said a longer version of what Wiendish Fitch said: what self-esteem ? 

[glowlights]

I hated The Accountant. I thought it was dumb, disjointed, and fell into that weird trap of stereotyping autistic people as super-geniuses and/or robots. The ending made me LOL. Even Anna Kendrick couldn't make me interested in what was supposedly going on. Oh, and doing his audit on a glass window overlooking the rest of the office, therefore publishing it for all to see. Jesus Christ.

[kiddo82]

You know what movie that falls into the "coming of age" category that I really enjoy?  About Schmidt.  Maybe it works so well because Schmidt is older.  It's one thing to try and navigate the world at 16 when you're pretty much a blank slate, it's quite different to have to renavigate it in your 60s after everything you've known for practically your entire life is gone.  The ending made me cry.  

[Blergh]

Despite liking Holly Hunter, William Hurt and Albert [Einstein!]Brooks, I wound up disliking Broadcast News very much. Mr. Brooks was the only vaguely likable character and the whole 'fake tear' deal was a total righteous fail considering how exploitive Holly Hunter's character was to news subjects. I got the impression that the main reason it got such high reviews was due to reviewers not wanting to dis a movie about the media where they worked.

[IWantCandy71]

Not a coming of age movie, but I pretty much hate Forrest Gump. One of the most overrated movies ever. And Tom Hanks is just such a boring, uninspired actor. I haven't been able to stand most of his movies that I've seen, though I did love the first season of Bosom Buddies.

[magicdog]

1 hour ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Tom Hanks is just such a boring, uninspired actor. I haven't been able to stand most of his movies that I've seen, though I did love the first season of Bosom Buddies.

Aww, I've generally liked Tom Hanks!  Bosom Buddies being a big reason for it.  Have you seen his early comedy "Bachelor Party?"  Funny stuff.  I don't think he's done enough comedies in his career.

 

As far as "coming of age" genre films, I agree most come off as aspiring Oscar bait, but rarely have I enjoyed them.  I loved "Meatballs" (which I think qualifies as such to some degree) since one of its storylines dealt with a camper (Chris Makepeace) who tries to fit in and finds his strength as a long distance runner while bonding with Bill Murray's character. 

[IWantCandy71]

I think I saw Bachelor Party many years ago, but it just wasn't my thing.  I really liked Tom in "You've Got Mail" and "Sleepless in Seattle", so I have to amend that there are some of his films(and his performances) that I like. I think he's better at lightweight stuff, honestly.  That could be why I did enjoy BB so much. He can do drama, I just don't think he has much range, and watching him try sometimes can be cringe worthy for me. I feel the same way about Leonardo DiCaprio and George Clooney. Oddly enough, those three tend to get a lot of Oscar talk, so maybe it's just that I like to go against the grain. But it could be because all three of them are bland white guys who tend to take roles that are...bland white guys. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's purely a YMMV thing.

[proserpina65]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 0:46 AM, IWantCandy71 said:

Not a coming of age movie, but I pretty much hate Forrest Gump. One of the most overrated movies ever. And Tom Hanks is just such a boring, uninspired actor. I haven't been able to stand most of his movies that I've seen, though I did love the first season of Bosom Buddies.

I liked Splash at the time, and loved Bachelor Party.  And that's pretty much it for Tom Hanks' movies for me.

[publius]

Joe vs The Volcano was Ton Hanks best movie!

[Blergh]

12 hours ago, publius said:

Joe vs The Volcano was Ton Hanks best movie!

I know you're expressing an UO but I've never forgotten the

Spoiler

'ha haa, it was ALL a dream'

revelation. Thanks for throwing it in my face that I'd wasted a couple  of hours of my life following this   smarmy deal.  Well, it takes all kinds, I guess and I never thought it was possible someone would like that one better than Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, etc but go figure

[scriggle]

I like Tony Stark but he's over-exposed.  I hate that Marvel gives Tony so much screen time in movies that are not HIS MOVIES. He takes over the spotlight of the character the movie’s actually about (case in point Cap3 - yes, I'm still bitter). I’ll probably still go see Spiderman but I’m not thrilled  with Tony being part of it and pulling focus from the other characters. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Tony Stark is like Wolverine, just without the ridiculous hair. Important and maybe even integral to the fictional universe he exists in, but he does tend to become the focal point when he doesn't need to be.

Second UO, if only because Natasha Romanov is such a popular character - with all due respect to Scarlett Johansson, her Critics' Choice nomination should have gone to Elizabeth Olsen instead. ScarJo's great, but she didn't have as much to do in Civil War as she did in Ultron, so I'm not sure why she got the nod.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Cobalt Stargazer

[ribboninthesky1]

12 hours ago, scriggle said:

I like Tony Stark but he's over-exposed.  I hate that Marvel gives Tony so much screen time in movies that are not HIS MOVIES. He takes over the spotlight of the character the movie’s actually about (case in point Cap3 - yes, I'm still bitter). I’ll probably still go see Spiderman but I’m not thrilled  with Tony being part of it and pulling focus from the other characters. 

I had no interest in Spiderman anyway (I've only seen the Toby Maguire films), but even I was rolling my eyes at Stark in the trailer.  But I've been pretty direct in my loathing of Tony Stark.  It's more popular to tire of him now, but I've hated the guy since the first film.

I think some of that is because I don't believe being a superhero/vigilante should be "fun." Not that it has to be all gloom and doom and angst, but it's far from child's play.  Thinking on it further, it's also why I've never cared to see younger versions of such characters. 

[Archery]

Finally caught Batman v. Superman from (almost) the beginning. I liked it. 

[ribboninthesky1]

We don't need anymore films about WWII.  That genre is as oversaturated as comics/superhero films, yet I don't think I've ever heard or read strong opinions about the former. 

[proserpina65]

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 3:23 PM, ribboninthesky1 said:

We don't need anymore films about WWII.  That genre is as oversaturated as comics/superhero films, yet I don't think I've ever heard or read strong opinions about the former. 

I think it depends on the type of film.  There are WWII-era stories which have been previously untold or can be done in a different way, but I agree that the standard war movie is kind of played out for now.  I am, however, interested in seeing Dunkirk when it hits theaters, as this particular part of WWII (prior to the US entry into the war) doesn't get much screen time on this side of the Atlantic.

Edited December 29, 2016 by proserpina65
Because using the correct words makes sense

[Shannon L.]

3 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

There are WWII-era stories which can be previously untold or done in a different way, but I agree that the standard war movie is kind of played out for now. 

I agree with both sentiments.  In general, yes, it's time to give them a rest, but there are some stories that I'd still like to see if they are done well.  I don't think we've ever had a movie about the Japanese internment camps here in America.  If I'm correct, then that surprises me and I would probably go see one. 

[proserpina65]

1 minute ago, Shannon L. said:

I agree with both sentiments.  In general, yes, it's time to give them a rest, but there are some stories that I'd still like to see if they are done well.  I don't think we've ever had a movie about the Japanese internment camps here in America.  If I'm correct, then that surprises me and I would probably go see one. 

There have been some - I've posted the link to Wikipedia - but not that many.  I knew of Come See The Paradise because I'm a fan of Dennis Quaid, but it's a much about his character as it is the interned family members.  It's a subject which certainly hasn't been covered a great deal (or particularly well for the most part) by the US film industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feature_films_about_the_Japanese_American_internment

[Shannon L.]

Thanks, proserpina65!  I knew there had to be a couple that I was unaware of.  It might be time for a really good one to made.

[Silver Raven]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

I agree with both sentiments.  In general, yes, it's time to give them a rest, but there are some stories that I'd still like to see if they are done well.  I don't think we've ever had a movie about the Japanese internment camps here in America.  If I'm correct, then that surprises me and I would probably go see one. 

I found a list:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feature_films_about_the_Japanese_American_internment

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

There have been some - I've posted the link to Wikipedia - but not that many.  I knew of Come See The Paradise because I'm a fan of Dennis Quaid, but it's a much about his character as it is the interned family members.  It's a subject which certainly hasn't been covered a great deal (or particularly well for the most part) by the US film industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feature_films_about_the_Japanese_American_internment

Heh.  You beat me to it. :)

[Dilandau]

I hate Fred Gailey from Miracle on 34th Street. He's so awful that he ruins the whole movie for me.

[Constantinople]

On 11/12/2016 at 0:21 PM, Crs97 said:

I have found my people!  I have always loathed Breakfast Club, and I was their age when it came out.  I remember everyone just gushing over this movie until I finally lost it at a party and gave my biting review.  They were stunned.  "My parents loved me too much.  Mine didn't love me enough.  My parents ignored me.  My parents paid too much attention to me . . ."  AAUUGGHH!  I will not put myself through the torture of seeing that film ever again.

I haven't watched the Breakfast Club since it was first released, and I don't have any desire to watch it again, but I still have a certain affection for it because of

1. the song, Don't You Forget About Me

2. The Breakfast Clubbing Season - a parody of The Killing Season, an Australian documentary about the political partnership of Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.  In The Breakfast Clubbing Season, Rudd is Judd Nelson's character and Gillard is Molly Ringwald's.

By the way, if you're interested in politics that includes some real life House of Cards, I recommend The Killing Season.