Movies

Is anybody else irrationally bothered by the fact that the new Harrison Ford starring, The Call of The Wild does not seem to feature any actual dogs or any other animals for that matter. The whole thing seems like a mess of CGI. I get for the riskier scenes where you wouldn’t want to potentially harm animals to use CGI stand ins but it looks like they just said fuck it and went total CGI. Hell, Fords replicant dog in Blade Runner 2049 was more realistic than this CGI version of Buck.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Is anybody else irrationally bothered by the fact that the new Harrison Ford starring, The Call of The Wild does not seem to feature any actual dogs or any other animals for that matter. The whole thing seems like a mess of CGI. I get for the riskier scenes where you wouldn’t want to potentially harm animals to use CGI stand ins but it looks like they just said fuck it and went total CGI. Hell, Fords replicant dog in Blade Runner 2049 was more realistic than this CGI version of Buck.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to comment not having seen the film, and knowing that CGI is usually rough in trailers due to the rush, but I literally laughed out loud at the effect in the theater when the trailer came on before A Hidden Life. I think they just wanted to get more of "performance" out of Buck, or that the director was just more comfortable that way this being his first live action film. Anyhow I don't have high hopes for this one. A story best left on page IMO.
 
zombie.modernist said:
I hesitate to comment not having seen the film, and knowing that CGI is usually rough in trailers due to the rush, but I literally laughed out loud at the effect in the theater when the trailer came on before A Hidden Life. I think they just wanted to get more of "performance" out of Buck, or that the director was just more comfortable that way this being his first live action film. Anyhow I don't have high hopes for this one. A story best left on page IMO.
Click to expand...
Same. It's one thing to have obvious CGI I guess, but they made the dog have cartoony over the top emotions apparent on its face, which completely kills it for me.
 
Birds of Prey is a ton of fun! Similar fun to the X-Men: Days of Future Past sense of reconciling earlier films' mistakes. Can't believe I'm singing the praises of another DCEU film finally.
 
dhodo said:
Same. It's one thing to have obvious CGI I guess, but they made the dog have cartoony over the top emotions apparent on its face, which completely kills it for me.
Click to expand...
Knowing the story of Call of the Wild, I have no interest. Either they'll give it a more sanitized, Disney ending, or it'll emotionally gut everyone in its radius.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
Harrison Ford
Click to expand...
Few filmographies are more mystifying.

He doesn’t debase himself like De Niro; he doesn’t swing for the fences and miss catastrophically like Costner; he doesn’t flame out because of off-screen antics like Gibson; he doesn’t fall into a black hole of same-same cop flicks like Willis; he doesn’t become an insufferable set of quirks and disappear up his own asshole like Depp...

...and yet he manages to choose projects that are pretty uniformly dreck for the last 20 years or more. Harrison Ford’s long nap is one of the biggest tragedies of latter-day Hollywood.
 
EvanBenner said:
Birds of Prey is a ton of fun! Similar fun to the X-Men: Days of Future Past sense of reconciling earlier films' mistakes. Can't believe I'm singing the praises of another DCEU film finally.
Click to expand...
I agree! I saw it last week and had a blast. It's probably my personal favorite film in the DCEU so far. It makes me very sad that it is underperforming, but at the same time I get the vibe that it'll maybe become something of a cult movie in a few years. Also the soundtrack is awesome ^_^
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Few filmographies are more mystifying.

He doesn’t debase himself like De Niro; he doesn’t swing for the fences and miss catastrophically like Costner; he doesn’t flame out because of off-screen antics like Gibson; he doesn’t fall into a black hole of same-same cop flicks like Willis; he doesn’t become an insufferable set of quirks and disappear up his own asshole like Depp...

...and yet he manages to choose projects that are pretty uniformly dreck for the last 20 years or more. Harrison Ford’s long nap is one of the biggest tragedies of latter-day Hollywood.
Click to expand...

My theory is that he knows he’s best at making really dumb premises work through sheer charisma (see all of his 90s work) so perhaps he’s just overly confident in his ability to polish a turd.

I’ll also say he’s a victim of his age. Although nowhere near as dire as roles for older female actors, lots of the roles he’s getting keep fitting the same template. Even the more high profile ones like Crystal Skull, 2049, and Force Awakens all kind of followed the same formula of a grisly old action hero who’s still got some gas in the tank. I don’t think anyone can figure out what to do with him, least of all himself.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Few filmographies are more mystifying.

He doesn’t debase himself like De Niro; he doesn’t swing for the fences and miss catastrophically like Costner; he doesn’t flame out because of off-screen antics like Gibson; he doesn’t fall into a black hole of same-same cop flicks like Willis; he doesn’t become an insufferable set of quirks and disappear up his own asshole like Depp...

...and yet he manages to choose projects that are pretty uniformly dreck for the last 20 years or more. Harrison Ford’s long nap is one of the biggest tragedies of latter-day Hollywood.
Click to expand...
He does enjoy crashing landing small aircrafts though.
 
gaporter said:
To be honest, it's no longer surprising for me to see things like this. I just hope this clown doesn't stick around for too much longer. Not gonna get too hopeful for that tho.
Click to expand...

Can I ask a serious political question that's been bothering me for a bit right now?

Whenever I read about gun laws in the US, there seems to be a huge contingent that believes they need to have guns in case the government turns tyrannical and they need to fight back. Why aren't these people doing anything right now? Like.. don't misinterpret what I'm saying as advocating armed resistance but that seems to be the go-to argument and yet here we are and those same people seem to be quiet as a mouse. It's mystifying as a relatively close outsider.
 
Clint Howard said:
Can I ask a serious political question that's been bothering me for a bit right now?

Whenever I read about gun laws in the US, there seems to be a huge contingent that believes they need to have guns in case the government turns tyrannical and they need to fight back. Why aren't these people doing anything right now? Like.. don't misinterpret what I'm saying as advocating armed resistance but that seems to be the go-to argument and yet here we are and those same people seem to be quiet as a mouse. It's mystifying as a relatively close outsider.
Click to expand...
The contingent that would argue that are stockpiling guns against "liberal" governments. Authoritarian Christian theocracies are okay though.
 
Clint Howard said:
Can I ask a serious political question that's been bothering me for a bit right now?

Whenever I read about gun laws in the US, there seems to be a huge contingent that believes they need to have guns in case the government turns tyrannical and they need to fight back. Why aren't these people doing anything right now? Like.. don't misinterpret what I'm saying as advocating armed resistance but that seems to be the go-to argument and yet here we are and those same people seem to be quiet as a mouse. It's mystifying as a relatively close outsider.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure the only person who could answer that question for you here, won’t have that conversation here.

Edited to add; The disingenuousness of your question (made readily apparent by the manner it was framed and the cheers you gave ayayrawn’s answer that was so biased and ignorant it would be offensive if it also wasn’t also so predictable) and hostile locale for the subject are why that discussion can’t be had here.

If you actually wish to find education on the subject I can help, but you’ll have to venture elsewhere on the web with me.
 
Last edited:
If guns hold the tryants at bay, then only tyrants will try to take your guns.

giphy.gif
 
Clint Howard said:
Can I ask a serious political question that's been bothering me for a bit right now?

Whenever I read about gun laws in the US, there seems to be a huge contingent that believes they need to have guns in case the government turns tyrannical and they need to fight back. Why aren't these people doing anything right now? Like.. don't misinterpret what I'm saying as advocating armed resistance but that seems to be the go-to argument and yet here we are and those same people seem to be quiet as a mouse. It's mystifying as a relatively close outsider.
Click to expand...
Because the orange shithead is serving the flavor of tyranny they like. He's draped in the flag, and any fascist actions on his part are in the name of patriotism and keeping "America for Americans." He's pandering to the exact type of person who does think America is under attack, that the enemy is *checks notes* the South Korean film industry.

It’s hard to distill the whole debate because, like much of the political landscape of America today, political, religious, racial, and cultural divides have melted all together and it’s impossible to label an issue as pertaining to one single column. But the kind of fascism at rise right now isn’t affecting most gun owners, and the type of fascism they’re worried about is the type that’ll infringe on their own personal freedoms, not all Americans' freedoms. I’d also argue that the whole “we need semi-automatics to protect ourselves from an uprising” idea is a result of NRA propaganda; it’s kind of the only non-recreational reason (beyond hunting out of necessity rather than sport) one could use to justify gun ownership.

To put it really broadly and simplistically: people believe they need guns to defend themselves should someone come to take their guns.
 
Last edited:
Chucktshoes said:
I’m pretty sure the only person who could answer that question for you here, won’t have that conversation here.

Edited to add; The disingenuousness of your question (made readily apparent by the manner it was framed and the cheers you gave ayayrawn’s answer that was so biased and ignorant it would be offensive if it also wasn’t also so predictable) and hostile locale for the subject are why that discussion can’t be had here.

If you actually wish to find education on the subject I can help, but you’ll have to venture elsewhere on the web with me.
Click to expand...

Uhh.. what? What a rude fucking edit. I asked a genuine question and then cheered a person who responded. What the fuck is your problem?
 
lol, if you want to promote understanding of gun ownership it's pretty shitty optics to get all pissed about someone asking the question, and presuming they should understand what is globally a minority opinion. In general American has a unique relationship to the gun compared to other western countries which is why @Clint Howard 's question is entirely valid. My own completely anti-gun status which is "radically left" in the context of American politics is much closer to the center elsewhere in the world.

I was going to write up a response but I agree with most of what @Bull Shannon said rings true to me. I will add one note: keep in mind that the nature of our two party system is such that a person can be indoctrinated into the right just via the GOP's stance on guns. It's one of the big problems with our discourse that everything is black or white, and thus people who are really passionate about the second amendment are more likely to view the GOP as the "good guys."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top