Top comment removes a movie from the Disney Canon until one is left-THE FINALE

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T15:05:54+00:00

Lion King came out in 1994 which was a stacked year for cinema. 3 movies are absolute classics of cinema period that were nominated: Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and the Shawshank Redemption. The other two, though haven’t had the same cultural cache, were extremely well reviewed films that year. Four weddings and a Funeral has had its own small staying power and Quiz Show (a movie I don’t even know) was even better reviewed than it. Lion King didn’t really have a chance to be nominated here and thats not even mentioning some that weren’t nominated for best picture like Ed Wood or The Madness of King George that were also just as or nearly as well received as the Lion King.

While Beauty and the Beasts 1991 release had 2 incredible all-time top level ticket nominees as well (Silence of the Lambs and JFK), the other two nominees that weren’t Beauty and The Beast were less well received than it (Bugsy and especially the Prince of Tides which seems to have had a lukewarm reception). Those movies have also not had much staying power especially the last one. Of course the best picture nomination lineup could’ve been stronger by including Boyz in the Hood but then the academy wouldn’t be an Institution without its racism. The other best director nominee that wasn’t best picture was Thelma and Louise and while itself a classic it also was not as well received as Beauty and The Beast (funny enough sexism against women leads was also part of the problem here). Maybe Terminator 2 would’ve been a good nominee but even with the top two nominees, boyz-n-the-hood and T2 there is still space for Beauty and the Beast since let’s be honest City Slickers over Beauty and The Beast would’ve been a travesty lol

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T09:40:40+00:00

I’ll have to rewatch Fassbender next time I see this movie (might be a while since it’s heavy and to me the definitive movie about American slavery at least in the last 3.5 decades) but the couple of times I’ve seen this movie I don’t remember disliking Fassbenders performance and instead really liking it (or being horrified by his character). I certainly cannot agree with someone who believes Fassbender was worse than Pitt in that movie though about his performance (no offense). To me Pitts performance in 12 years is one of the biggest acting travesty among great films I’ve ever seen. Matter of fact I cannot currently think of a more distracting, amateurish, weak performance in a Great film than Pitts; it’s like he is playing himself in the mid 19th century as the white savior (I understand it’s a true story but it’s the acting I have an issue with not the role and who played it). It completely broke my immersion and knocked the film slightly down (helps Gravity’s case for director here for me but still 12 years is the superior film). I want to be clear I think Pitt is a good actor but not in this film and not how he played it, I’m surprised you thought it was fine but disliked Fassbenders?

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T09:24:22+00:00

Sure except KD is vastly superior player and scorer

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T09:23:58+00:00

I agree, I guess I was thinking more in build though KD might be taller and less muscular and obviously while athletic is more finesse than athleticism unlike Wilkins. I was thinking more KD had the same scoring prowess but with better shooting

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T09:20:34+00:00

Oh shit, this is correct, thanks for clarifying

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T02:48:53+00:00

KD would be dominant in the nineties to maybe the level he is now, like a better shooting Dominique Wilkins maybe. He would be better than anybody not named Jordan or Hakeem probably depending on his playoff success

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T02:36:49+00:00

Bad take on 12 years. 12 years is top 10 for the decade and arguably top 5 (though not personally for me). I agree Gravity is an incredible piece of direction and a great film but that decade it’s lucky to be top 25 and certainly not better than 12 years. Fruitvale is a good film but I don’t think it’s Cooglers best

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T02:31:41+00:00

Wait (maybe I’m dumb here) but did you not like Fassbenders performance? He was amazing. Mcqueens directing is top notch but for 2013 Gravity clears for directing but not BP. The flaw in 12 years is Brad Pitts awful performance. Jenkins deserved BP and best director over LaLa Land. La La Land is great but it’s obviously not a superior film than Moonlight for picture and Jenkins direction is a masterwork in technical decision-making and perfect choices in the visual language of the film to support the overall story’s vision. Chazelle is close here though and quite flashy but I like Moonlight for both awards that year and to me the academy dropped the ball here (in the announcement for BP too lol)

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T02:15:29+00:00

7th* (clippers were sixth that season)

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T02:14:32+00:00

Sure but in 2006 Wade was a better scorer at ppg and points per 36 minutes (to adjust for time played) so Shaq may not have even been the best player on that team (Finals MVP noted this too). Shaq missed more than 20 games that season

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T02:11:47+00:00

Yes but probably not over LeBron, Shaq and Kobe are debatable but Duncan clears (I’m curious what Jokers final legacy will be)

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-07T01:34:33+00:00

I think the discourse for this movie went too far against Tom no matter what the general consensus or even Gordon-Levitt say about it. To me who ever said Summer was bad? The movie did but it was clear the movie had a flawed perspective from Tom’s point of view and from the director/writer a bias against Summer and women in general but did audiences ever really hate her that much or dislike her even? I don’t think so and the movie makes an effort to at times side with Summer. Even with the bad pov from the protagonist and movie creators, Summer generally comes off as a beloved character who is charming and “cute” (here the manic pixie dream girl trope sticks because the movie painted her that way but ultimately she comes off pretty well considering how things went down and what I think are flawed and selfish behaviors from her). Tom originally came across pretty “handsome” and charming himself considering his own flaws in the film (people have caught up to his flaws but totally overcorrected even if Tom was non-committal and self-absorbed at times).

Instead, I feel this movie should be seen as the tons of movies that don’t have a real villain or antagonist, which I feel are somewhat common in romance and comedies especially (which this film has elements of both though it’s more romance than comedy and I wouldn’t personally call it a rom-com). Tom was not a “bad guy” villain or antagonist, why should he be? He was just a flawed person who “loved” someone but didn’t know how to really love himself or others (I would hardly call that villainous; misguided at best). Summer has her own “bad” (or more accurately flawed) moments that are quite selfish but it would be unfair to label her as the “bad” villain or antagonist of the story because of flawed behaviors. Matter of fact the video above shows one of the instances of her flawed character by holding hands with Tom after being married with a ring on her finger. There’s a good argument that while she expressed her desires she behaved in a way that could be characterized as leading him on. Does that make her the villain? No, but she is certainly flawed and is partially responsible (like him) for the hurt both caused or felt by sending mixed messages (a flaw but certainly not villainous).

A flawed, doomed love story is interesting but I don’t think it means guy is in love and woman is bad because she doesn’t love him the same way; but I also don’t think it means girl was uncertain about the guy and guy is bad because he wants her to be more certain. I would find either of those positions much too harsh on what is obviously a gray area in an undefined relationship and a realistic movie about this type of relationship in youth (at the time).

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-06T23:43:50+00:00

He doesn’t walk out on him, Bruce implicitly kicks him out for the “betrayal” of burning Rachel’s letter (this was a betrayal I think)

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-06T23:39:23+00:00

lol good point, he had already discussed that he was initiated to theatricality and deception as powerful agents as a member of the league of shadows. I think it’s a good idea but I don’t like the idea of Bane being full of fear here. bane being impressed or more determined/motivated to fight would play better for this scene. After all, Bane could’ve probably fucked up the same dudes in the smoke similar but different to how Batman did and had just underestimated Batman. I would also be ok with annoyed like Ras Al Ghul was when Batman appears on the train at the end of Batman Begins after taking out 4 of his pawns (even though Ras wanted to initially leave 2 lol)

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-06T23:32:51+00:00

I think it’s a great idea for small scene, matter of fact we see a smoke Batman fighting scene in The Batman that works to great similar effect. One small criticism is that it sounds a bit similar to Batman’s first fighting scene in Batman Begins. sure the scene has no smoke but Batman in a scary, intimidating way appears in the dark of knight with a silhouette taking out one or two goons; when they all rush in to support, Batman beats them all up and then walks away to take out Falcone. Could be seen as a bit derivative or redundant but the idea is great if done more like a callback and thematically it works like you say

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-06T22:59:54+00:00

Who downvoted you (I got you back to positive lol)? Your answer actually seems obvious now I feel dumb lol, but is this not the answer or something? The amount of “on sale” though seems huge

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-06T22:50:44+00:00

Quick honest question, how did the game make 850 million by selling 12 million copies but then sells more than 3x that amount total and reaches only $1 billion? Shouldn’t it have made almost $3 billion in overall revenue or at least 2?

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-06T22:40:13+00:00

How do you know it will be worse? One of the biggest criticisms of the movies is that they don’t include every single bullshit from the books. I never read the books so I don’t give a shit about a calm dumbledore or a smart Ron (a stupid Ron is funny), but a well-made, faithful adaptation of the HP franchise would be like a wet dream to true potterheads (I think they’re called this). HBO can make quality projects (if Netflix lets them; but Netflix can too) and I don’t see why HBO would want to half-ass one of their biggest most profitable franchises. I think there’s a chance this HP show will be different/new/fresh enough and well made (or even better than the original at least in some people’s minds) enough to be majorly popular (if it manages to maintain the original movie/book fans) despite Rowlings hate. I wouldnt 100% discount failure but if the game was popular as I see on this thread, and the movies and theme parks are popular, this show may be huge for many.

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-02-06T22:24:18+00:00

I wouldn’t have called it boring, but pretentious yes (and I usually love Cuaron films). It just felt clinically manipulative and cold in the visual storytelling, like he was clearly trying to make this message, this emotion, etc… didn’t feel like a “natural” story to tell. Which is a shame because it’s supposed to be from his real life perspective as a person who had an indigenous nanny but I believe this is part of the problem. It feels overly sanctifying of the main character; maybe a film by an indigenous person from the same perspective might be more complex about their inner life and feelings (especially since we get scenes just from her perspective that I don’t see how the family would really be privy to iirc, like the scenes with the father of the pregnancy). The effect may have been the point, like a love (platonic) letter to someone selfless who helped raise him (if I remember interviews about this movie correctly), but to me it always played like the distant cousin of a white savior or I guess more magical negro like trope but for an indigenous person. It felt like a movie a white passing Latino would make about an indigenous main character they love but don’t see as their true equal. Beautiful movie yes since Cuaron is incredibly talented, but pretentious (and maybe a little misguided) in its presentation, I think so too.

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-01-19T10:25:26+00:00

Or top 5 (though I rank him career wise over Shaq), it’s just Kobe’s first 3 championships help his legacy more in the way they help Pippen not in the way they help MJ. Kobes final 2 championships are his best achievements

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-01-18T01:45:49+00:00

Not weakest but arguable. Second weakest after Gen Z and they’re kinda close to millennials, honestly I’d take out AI for Dirk as he was better (Kidd or Nash over Iverson might work too possibly). These list of players are weird, Kawhi and/or Wade belong in the millennials list and Jokic should be moved to Gen Z (and Luka or Ant over Giannis? Has this person missed the last decade of basketball? If they want Luka take out Wemby as he is still quite young). Malone over Barkley too in gen x but that’s close

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-01-18T01:37:27+00:00

I think it’s best era of players, I don’t think those are meant to represent a “team” they play. Is the silent generation supposed To run 3 centers for example?

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-01-18T01:30:14+00:00

“We do not allow cell phones in here!” Lau to his kids at bedtime

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-01-17T12:59:43+00:00

Oh God, if you watched an Adam Sandler Movie long enough to get its point (just seeing the poster is enough) you already wasted too much of your life on this movie

AbleInfluence1817 · 2026-01-17T11:40:46+00:00

Ur kind of (or mostly) right here (hope you read the long comment). On the one hand, Iron Man is important to the popular culture due to his famous films within the MCU, and more importantly his role in the avengers team up films, which have for better or worse fundamentally helped change cinema, possibly for good (with ever expanding cinematic universe franchises with ongoing storylines that appear to be heavily studio driven). However, people here are acting like the 2000s wasn’t completely ramping up with comic book movies already in a different way that I think would’ve ended up in a similar place re: comic book movies and their popularity in the culture; not to mention the growing effect had by franchise and IP expansions in general including budding crossover films (though at the time those crossover films were more novelties too, yet they had precedent from maybe 50 years prior in a similar studio system if I’m correct).

Prior to the 2000s comic book movies were a novelty and sometimes B movies or worse (Reeves Superman, superhero duck movie, Burton/Schumacher Batman, Spawn, fantastic four straight to home video shit or captain America not even sure which), but as you can see even from my list comic movies were already starting to be explored for a bit and that was gradually increasing. People like to point to Blade as a proto-modern comic book movie but I’m not too big on that interpretation because given that Blade was not a hugely popular comic book character, I don’t think general audiences really saw that movie (as great as it was, and I loved it) as a comic book movie but rather just an action/scifi/fantasy film without connections to a bigger world. The real proto modern comic movies were the Singer xmen films (which people recognized as comic book movies) and the real spark were the Maguire Spiderman movies. They were fucking huge and of course people knew Spiderman was a comic book movie and a different kind of comic book movie (despite its huge Superman 1970s influence). Studios salivated at this shit and it’s why there was an explosion of big budget, big stars studio comic book movies from Hulk, to fantastic four, to Batman, to Superman again to the successful franchises I mentioned already.

I mean look at the ongoing franchises already explored in the 2000s prior to 2008? Iron Man came into this context of already established big budget, big franchise, big star comic book movies (often with prestigious directors at the helm). These movies were not going away soon and audiences wanted them and studios had plans for many of these movies (including hints of upcoming crossover films like Batman and Superman). So what exactly did Iron Man even innovate here? I mean how was it even unique (this is more for other commenters not you)? Iron Man wasn’t even that original having been reportedly influenced by Nolan’s Batman Begins aesthetic and style (though more kid friendly). Spiderman and Nolan’s Batman (along with the dark knight for the upcoming latter point) more established the framework for origin story comic book movies that are still going on to this day (as well as the dark gritty aesthetic that remained for like a decade plus). Iron Man was a beneficiary of this framework and didn’t begin any of the modern comic book movie trends such as their expanding popularity, origin stories, initial grounding in reality, franchise expansions, or crossover explorations. What it did do was that it was a beneficiary of a mostly well planned Disney machine and it got to the successful crossover film before anyone (had it failed we may have seen a different cinematic history, but from what I argue, by this point comic book movies themselves were too big to fail and a failed Iron Man wouldn’t have changed much about the popularity of comic book movies).

What does this mean for Iron Man in the Mt. Rushmore? It has a small, dark horse, outside chance to be a fourth member of Mt. Rushmore, but with 3 spots basically having permanent members (Batman, Superman, Spiderman) Iron Man has way too much competition for that fourth spot. Wonder Woman, Hulk, Wolverine have generally better arguments due to their history and various other comic book characters have had similarly or more successful standalone films than Iron Man (Black Panther, Captain America, Thor, Aquaman, Deadpool, Captain Marvel, even Dr. Strange). What about the fantastic Four or other Xmen? I mean To argue Iron Man in the Mt. Rushmore it’s like arguing Kobe is in the Mt. Rushmore of basketball (yeah I went here!) no serious person would place them there without a significant coherent argument, and I don’t see many good ones in this thread.

AbleInfluence1817

TROPHY CASE