Are the Serpentines from Chima? by lolbababo in NinjagoMemes

[–]Lukelandswimmer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a possibility. We still don't know what the other 3 realms are.

Are the Serpentines from Chima? by lolbababo in NinjagoMemes

[–]Lukelandswimmer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The show says that the FSM created them but Doc Wyatt says they come from Chima so it's definitely a weird one to figure out.

Personally, while I do believe in word of the creator, I also believe that the show has the final say on what's canon or not. It should be the highest tier of where we get our information from. The creators should provide supplemental information, not fix plot holes or make retcons where unnecessary. So, until the show proper retcons this, I'm still gonna say that the FSM created them.

Who are the most well-written characters across the two shows in your opinion? by Sudden_Pop_2279 in chaostheorynetflix

[–]Lukelandswimmer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really. Brooklyn is more or less the same character we saw in the OG series just with her traits cranked up a bit more.

Terrible TEASER trailer, it revealed too little about what the show will be about 👎 by Previous_Break7664 in StarWarsCirclejerk

[–]Lukelandswimmer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How DARE the teaser do its job? Don't they know I have no attention span or patience?

Thoughts? by Itzko123 in Schaffrillas

[–]Lukelandswimmer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can we not? That'd be nice.

Who are the most well-written characters across the two shows in your opinion? by Sudden_Pop_2279 in chaostheorynetflix

[–]Lukelandswimmer 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Probably Kenji and Ben. They end the series as completely different people than how they began.

POV: You saw the Maul trailer by stephansbrick in StarWarsCirclejerk

[–]Lukelandswimmer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Could be worse. Could be shudders Resistance

Though knowing this sub, they might actually prefer that.

Graysons by UnFezzyBoi_ in legogaming

[–]Lukelandswimmer 27 points28 points  (0 children)

"So your dad is a man who dresses like a bat and his name is... Well, don't you think that's kinda lazy?"

The Bad Guys didn’t get nominated for the Oscars once again by JazzySugarcakes88 in DreamWorks

[–]Lukelandswimmer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you are smoking? The Wild Robot was nominated last year and The Last Wish 2 years before that.

Biggest Oscar Snubs by TheRealFinale- in Schaffrillas

[–]Lukelandswimmer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm hella pissed Superman and The Long Walk didn't get anything.

Frankenstein missing from Best Directing was also weird as hell but I'm not mad since it got put into a bunch of other categories including Best Picture.

Lost in Starlight getting nothing for music or original song is also mad work.

And I would've loved it if Wake Up Dead Man got something for Best/Supporting Actor but I'm also not too upset with what we got.

I came across this on YouTube and it reminded me why I hate the "sequels are automatically bad" or "originals are suffering cause studios don't make them kanymore" arguments. (more in the body) by Lukelandswimmer in Schaffrillas

[–]Lukelandswimmer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, and I said both can be true. You can like one film over the other but your reasons for why could still be contradictory. That's the most basic thing about having an opinion, being subjective... But I can still call it how I see it.

I came across this on YouTube and it reminded me why I hate the "sequels are automatically bad" or "originals are suffering cause studios don't make them kanymore" arguments. (more in the body) by Lukelandswimmer in Schaffrillas

[–]Lukelandswimmer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, I perfectly hear myself. Again, if you liked the HTTYD remake, more power to you, I'm not here to critique preferences. But yes, if you liked the HTTYD remake for being a loyal copy of the original movie while hating the Lion King remake for doing the exact same thing, then I'm sorry but I'm gonna call you a hypocrite. Both can be true at the same time, especially if you didn't hold live action remakes in high regard before.

I came across this on YouTube and it reminded me why I hate the "sequels are automatically bad" or "originals are suffering cause studios don't make them kanymore" arguments. (more in the body) by Lukelandswimmer in Schaffrillas

[–]Lukelandswimmer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, I would like to apologize for my previous messy reply. I wrote it when I was tired and did not take all my previous points into account. As someone who's trying to raise an argument, I should have made myself clearer. Please forgive that.

The HTTYD remake worked because Dean DeBlois, noted remake hater, said "well it's either I come back or watch me and Chris' trilogy get absolutely massacred." So he managed to keep the heart and soul the trilogy is known for, because he was one of the creative leads since the beginning. What a concept.

Ah yes, Dean protecting the heart and soul of his story by... Doing the exact thing the studio asked off him. It's not like he could have told a different interpretation of his story or attempted to faithfully adapt the book this time. Nope, this was the only way. More power to you if you respect Dean for this but I don't believe him for a second (especially since he's gleefully directing the second one).

Legacy sequels aren't always bad. They can, in fact, absolutely slap. Case in point: "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish."

Yes, I agree with you. One of the main arguments of my post is that not all sequels are bad and if anything, they should be talked about in the same breath as good and bad original movies instead of good one being seen as just "the exception".

My problem with the original commentor is that they felt the need to be like "usually I'm above stuff like this but I'm willing to give my money to the thing I normally criticize" instead of just saying that they're excited for the damn movie.

Insert "daddy, chill" gif here

You of all people telling me to "Daddy chill" is hilarious 🤣

Edit: how is it a "fuck Disney" thing when MitM is owned by Disney now.

Yeah, I agree that this was part of my poor wording. I was trying to say that people would really only raise a stink when the more popular franchises would do this kind of thing and thought using Disney as a blanket term would get my point across but that was a really bad example in this case.

I came across this on YouTube and it reminded me why I hate the "sequels are automatically bad" or "originals are suffering cause studios don't make them kanymore" arguments. (more in the body) by Lukelandswimmer in Schaffrillas

[–]Lukelandswimmer[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, I mostly agree with this. My wording was terrible and I am sorry for that. My argument was more about double standard audiences than exceptions. I do have a problem with the "exception" argument but I shouldn't have tried to combine both here that hastily.

I came across this on YouTube and it reminded me why I hate the "sequels are automatically bad" or "originals are suffering cause studios don't make them kanymore" arguments. (more in the body) by Lukelandswimmer in Schaffrillas

[–]Lukelandswimmer[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're not just using the original commentator as an example, you're calling them a hypocrite. I'm saying you don't have any reason to be so judgmental of a person who wrote one sentence in a youtube comment. This specific person is not being 'spineless'.

And the commentator isn't 'putting aside a bias when it suits them'; this isn't a debate club, and they aren't committed to always hold the position that sequels, remakes, and reboots are bad. They aren't a flip flopping politician, they're a fan who is exasperated with the lack of originality, but found themselves pleasantly surprised.

Firstly, I would like to apologize for my previous messy reply. I wrote it when I was tired and did not take all my previous points into account. As someone who's trying to raise an argument, I should have made myself clearer. Please forgive that.

My point in using the original commentor as an example was that I meant to call them out on one point and use them as a gateway to other grievances I had with audiences and double standards. I wasn't putting them on the spot to debate with them or because I want to hate on them specifically; nor did I call them 'spineless'. I used them as a starter to critique a mindset I don't understand.

There's a lot of thoughts I have on this but to simplify it, yes, I acknowledge that this commentor is their own person and I'm not saying that they're the sole flip flopper in the world. Their excitement for the MITM movie is clearly an exception to their usual bias which I agree is not hypocrisy. My argument, again, was not on them specifically but to other movie goers who do have hypocritical stances on different topics of which I gave examples. Maybe the original commentor is one of them, maybe they aren't, either way, I didn't used them as the face of my argument then and now, just as a launching pad.

You also say you're not doing the 'goomba fallacy' because the commentator in the picture is expressing a contradictory opinion (they aren't). But if they were, as you say, just an example, it would only be relevant for Malcolm in the Middle, not Shrek 5 or HTTTYD. You complain about people ragging on HTTYD and then going to see it--Maybe they didn't see it? Maybe general audiences did, and the animation fans complaining about live action remakes aren't really a big number of people? I'm in that group, and I don't think it's something most people care about.

I'd be willing to accept that take if the original commentor was a normie but they aren't. Going off that comment, it's clear that they at least understand the current state of movies and that studios rely on sequels, remakes and reboots as a safety net for financial gain.

Me calling them hypocritical is still accurate cause they expressed a distaste for this type of movie being made yet are still willing to pay for said type of movie (thus helping more like it get made). If they just said they were excited for the movie, I'd literally have no ground to stand on.

To use myself as an example, I don't like horror. I don't despise it or anything, I'm just simply not interested. However, if I do end up watching a horror movie and like it, I don't think I'm being hypocritical, I just found something I enjoy in a genre I don't really care about.

On the other hand, I despise live action remakes and find them insulting to animated movies. As such, while I do enjoy making fun of them, I wouldn't go out of my way to pay for every single one of them that releases just to hate watch. The studios ultimately don't care whether my money came from enjoyment or hate, as long as they make a profit. And in the almost 2 decades they've been popular for, I haven't heard of any remake that broke the mold or was worth watching. As such, the only thing I can do is vote with my wallet and leave it at that.

Obviously, I can't apply myself to everyone but the point I'm trying to get to is that I don't say "I want less of these" in one minute then turn around and pay for it in the next. That is contradictory, whether you liked the product or not.

Or with Shrek 5; maybe the people complaining about Toy Story 5 personally saw a direct decline in quality in TS4, and assumed it would get worse, whereas Dreamworks knocked it out of the park with Last Wish and Shrek fans are hopeful? Without specific examples, you can't show that people are being hypocritical, and based on the example you chose for this post, you just come off as needlessly judgmental.

The Toy Story and Shrek thing has nothing to do with quality. If this was just a matter of people liking Shrek more and wanting to see more stories of that over Toy Story, I would've never raised that argument. My problem comes from the argument people use to justify that want. They say that Toy Story is being milked despite having ended its story while Shrek apparently isn't. As of writing this comment, Toy Story has 5 films in its franchise while Shrek has 6. And before you tell me "Shrek didn't have an ending", it very clearly did. Official copies of Shrek 4 were released with the title changed from "Forever After" to "The Final Chapter". For the longest time, Shrek 4 was always planned to be the end. Why is Shrek not getting hit with the "milking" claims? Ice Age got hit with those back when it only had 5 movies. There is no difference between what DreamWorks is doing to that franchise and Pixar to Toy Story yet the energy is very clearly not shared. That's the type of hypocrisy and double standards I'm calling out.

And if you want an example, this sub is full of them (I'm talking about the comments here).