Huwman's avatar
Actually, now that you've said that, even their rather sad direction is starting to look pretty good by comparison.

Now I want to make a "cream filled doughnut" joke but, fortunately, I am much too mature . . . oh . . . wait . . . c-r-r-r-ap.
jhames34's avatar
hehe at least the art is purrdy in some of them :) But going back to my essay series from my journal, "Style and Substance," you need an equal mix of both those things to not be poop.
Huwman's avatar
Well, yes, exactly. Same with the movies. They have "style" pretty much nailed down with the seamless CGI effects, etc., but that whole "substance" thing seems to be eluding them almost entirely.
jhames34's avatar
I couldn't agree more...it's so rare that I see a movie that I can enjoy these days...I'm watching a lot of Turner Classic Movies lately...if by "lot" you mean 2 movies a month ;)
Huwman's avatar
For a fairly recent "mainstream" movie I actually thought "Limitless" was interesting but, yes, I'm pretty much into very old and/or independent or/or generally obscure stuff. I've never seen most the "blockbusters" people are always going on about and don't plan to.

If you ever go through a list of the current "big" movies it's absolutely mind-boggling to note how many are unnecessary remakes of (better) older moves; unnecessary remakes of (better) foreign movies; adaptations of books, comics, games or TV shows; prequels, sequels or . . . well, you get the idea.

Often there are NONE that don't fit into one of these categories. Hollywood needs to file for creative bankruptcy.