What the heck does all that superman junk have to do with Star Wars again? I saw an Abrams quote and then a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with Abrahams, Disney, or Star Wars. Lol
The new star treks were good- commercially and critically. And I'm all for a new Star Wars- why the heck not. The originally trilogy still holds up fine- if you look at the franchise itself- it's already ruined because of 1-3. This will do nothing but help it- if it's terrible- we do what we do now. We say "4-6 is all you should watch"
Iron Man 3- their first foray in the Marvel world- was slightly better than Iron Man 2 (based on Rot. Tom)
The Avengers
Thor 2 was better than Thor
Captain America Winter Soldier was immensely better than the first Capt America- and probably the best Marvel film to date- with the exception of possibly.....
Guardians of the Galaxy- which was incredible.
Iron Man 3 was the worst of the trilogy. So boring. The 1st 2 films, the suits were near on indestructible and Stark was crazy but in control. Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken. What a crock of crap.
I couldn't wait for Thor 2 to finish, again, so boring. The 1st one was alright.
I only watched Captain America 2 a few weeks back and can't really remember anything from it.
The Avengers was a great film and I have high hopes for Guardians.
Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken.
Yeah, that bothered me. What bothered me most was Tony getting the shrapnel taken out of his chest. That’s sort of… his thing.
Oh, first movie. Swapping out the cave reactor for the civilization reactor. Is there something I’m missing about anatomy, or were we just expected to believe that a person’s heart is SIX INCHES BELOW THE SKIN? The sheer depth of the fusion reactor assembly in his chest… you look at the scene and you go, “Okay, am I a freak or something? I can pull up my shirt and SEE my heart beating, yet Tony’s heart is apparently THAT deep in his body?”
I’m sick of Disney garbagizing everything they own. Rather, everything they’ve purchased and amalgamated.
I'm 100% with you. I wanted to say that the title should read - "Disney whores 'Star Wars'...". But they have to get back their $4B.
The only thing that actually is a plus is that we may actually see the pre-Special Edition OTs on Blu-ray finally. In truth though, I am not overly fussed about those versions. I just bought the DVD set with the Empire Of Dreams disc and skipped every other release.
What the heck does all that superman junk have to do with Star Wars again?
The theme of the post was loosely around staying true to what made the originals iconic, there were a number of Superman examples, hence the skip note. The link was J.J. Abrams wanting to depart from the Superman story in Superman Returns and now working on Star Wars. He might try to do the same but it depends on if he's working from a script made a while ago.
And I'm all for a new Star Wars- why the heck not.
You can't just say why not do it because a great many sequels are better not done like Back to the Future 4 I mentioned earlier. This almost happened with Toy Story:
The originally trilogy still holds up fine- if you look at the franchise itself- it's already ruined because of 1-3. This will do nothing but help it- if it's terrible- we do what we do now. We say "4-6 is all you should watch"
Is that what they say about Police Academy? There were only 8 of those. Star Wars could end up having 12 parts. At least when there's just 6, you can say to skip a few, when there's 12, new generations will only have seen the newer ones.
When it turns out well like they did with the first two Batman movies in the most recent series, it's all good but those aren't really changing things as they are reboots. When they add to franchises, it's more like Indiana Jones:
[VIDEO]
They make these 'everything wrong' compilations about loads of films but you can see the mentions about the use of clichés and references to existing movies in the franchise. It cheapens the whole thing. They even had a competition running on the new Star Wars movie where a fan gets to be in it:
Iron Man 3 was the worst of the trilogy. So boring. The 1st 2 films, the suits were near on indestructible and Stark was crazy but in control. Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken. What a crock of crap.
I couldn't wait for Thor 2 to finish, again, so boring. The 1st one was alright.
I only watched Captain America 2 a few weeks back and can't really remember anything from it.
The Avengers was a great film and I have high hopes for Guardians.
Like I said- critically- Iron Man 3 was better than 2. Although I think they both were lacking. IM3 was also Disney's first foray into the Marvel universe. No one can argue that they haven't added to it since acquiring Marvel Pictures. Financially and Critically- it is a win all the way around- and better than before.
This might not be your opinion, personally- but you are clearly in the vast minority if you think it's gotten worse. Check the Box office numbers, critics ratings and fan ratings on Rotten Tomatoes if you think you're in the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You can't just say why not do it because a great many sequels are better not done like Back to the Future 4 I mentioned earlier. This almost happened with Toy Story:
Before Disney bought Pixar, they were going to make Toy Story 3 without them.
Jobs also said he wasn't going to allow Disney to distribute any more Pixar films... then a year and a half later when he inked the Ratatouille deal. It all seemed more like posturing than actually doing anything as they were having a big pissing match back in '04.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret
I'm 100% with you. I wanted to say that the title should read - "Disney whores 'Star Wars'...". But they have to get back their $4B.
I know it's catchy to say "Disney ruins everything"- but I still haven't seen any examples where they've ruined anything. All I get are superman, back to the future and indiana jones references- none of which were done by Disney.
I can see where they've greatly improved things- particularly with Marvel- the only other live-action "franchise" they've purchased.
I know it's catchy to say "Disney ruins everything"- but I still haven't seen any examples where they've ruined anything. All I get are superman, back to the future and indiana jones references- none of which were done by Disney.
[VIDEO]
Disney has a certain way of putting across a story:
"Gale and Zemeckis finally decided to pitch Back to the Future to Disney. "They told us that a mother falling in love with her son was not appropriate for a family film under the Disney banner," Gale said."
Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?
[VIDEO]
Pretty selective on your incest preference Disney. There's a chance the Back to the Future decision being made in the 80s might have had something to do with it but I bet they'd have bought both franchises up after seeing how popular they were back then without any problem. That attitude stifles creativity before movies are made.
Disney's ownership of Marvel hasn't done much harm but it's not like the movies are anywhere near the DC Comics / Warner Brothers movies.
They own Indiana Jones now too so they'll definitely ruin that eventually:
Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones and he's 72 now. Their only choice is to recast Indiana Jones or make some weird Indie Junior movie. Shia LaBeouf has gone nuts so it won't be him thankfully:
Maybe Disney deserves the benefit of the doubt here and maybe they'll make great movies out of these franchises but their company is driven towards making movies for kids, that's not who comic book movies are for.
"Gale and Zemeckis finally decided to pitch Back to the Future to Disney. "They told us that a mother falling in love with her son was not appropriate for a family film under the Disney banner," Gale said."
Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?
A point on this that may seem like splitting hairs, but which actually defines Disney’s business practices and has for decades.
“Under the Disney banner.” That’s an important distinction. Back to the Future, released with the Disney logo in front of it, may have been found inappropriate for that reason, but Lucasfilm properties, which won’t have that, will be treated differently. Disney’s child companies have absolutely no problem with all manner of questionable content.
Miramax, for example, released these films under Disney ownership:
And that’s just one of their companies. So as long as it doesn’t have the word “Disney” and the castle logo at the front, they couldn’t care less the contents of anything but their wallets.
"Gale and Zemeckis finally decided to pitch Back to the Future to Disney. "They told us that a mother falling in love with her son was not appropriate for a family film under the Disney banner," Gale said."
Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?
[VIDEO]
Pretty selective on your incest preference Disney. There's a chance the Back to the Future decision being made in the 80s might have had something to do with it but I bet they'd have bought both franchises up after seeing how popular they were back then without any problem. That attitude stifles creativity before movies are made.
Disney's ownership of Marvel hasn't done much harm but it's not like the movies are anywhere near the DC Comics / Warner Brothers movies.
They own Indiana Jones now too so they'll definitely ruin that eventually:
Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones and he's 72 now. Their only choice is to recast Indiana Jones or make some weird Indie Junior movie. Shia LaBeouf has gone nuts so it won't be him thankfully:
Maybe Disney deserves the benefit of the doubt here and maybe they'll make great movies out of these franchises but their company is driven towards making movies for kids, that's not who comic book movies are for.</div></div>
Lol... So basically- no, you don't have an example of where they ruined anything.
As for Star Wars in disney land (and Disney World)- perhaps you should read the reviews on that. It was done to the 9s and was absolutely spectacular. It also clearly didn't ruin anything. It was better than any comic con- and yes, it was geared for the Tweens.... It's freakin Disneyland. Hah
Telling you- they deserve the benefit of the doubt for sure. I honestly don't understand where the massive hysteria is coming from. But, of course, it's Star Wars- so that comes with the territory.
A point on this that may seem like splitting hairs, but which actually defines Disney’s business practices and has for decades.
“Under the Disney banner.” That’s an important distinction. Back to the Future, released with the Disney logo in front of it, may have been found inappropriate for that reason, but Lucasfilm properties, which won’t have that, will be treated differently. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Disney’s child companies have absolutely no problem with all manner of questionable content. </span>
And that’s just one of their companies. So as long as it doesn’t have the word “Disney” and the castle logo at the front, they couldn’t care less the contents of anything but their wallets.
What people need to be talking about is the Disney brainwash. They get you as a kid with their movies- frozen for girls and cars for boys- then you graduate to a tween and you're marvel heavy or Hannah Montana (or whatever it is now) Then you become an adult and they lock you in with ESPN or dancing with the stars. Have kids? Repeat the cycle.
Ah, yes, but that’s after Disney’s sale of the company.
...the Disney brainwash.
I’m less concerned about that, as I’m not a worthless pile of dreck like some parents seem to be*, but more about the brainwashing they do to their own employees. You mentioned Hannah Montana. Miley Cyrus has “graduated” to fellating blowup dolls on stage and doing fully nude music videos.
What values were instilled in her by her former corporation, would you say?
*To clarify, I am a worthless pile of dreck, just not as a parent.
Lol... So basically- no, you don't have an example of where they ruined anything.
I didn't make that claim and I'd expect most prior acquisitions to have been kid-oriented but I do think their comedic use of iconic characters ruins them a little as shown in the above ad and I expect future ruination by them.
As for Star Wars in disney land (and Disney World)- perhaps you should read the reviews on that. It was done to the 9s and was absolutely spectacular. It also clearly didn't ruin anything. It was better than any comic con- and yes, it was geared for the Tweens.... It's freakin Disneyland. Hah
[VIDEO]
Yeah it looks ok, the robot at 1:10 is pretty cool. The voices sound odd but they can't have the same actors forever.
Telling you- they deserve the benefit of the doubt for sure. I honestly don't understand where the massive hysteria is coming from. But, of course, it's Star Wars- so that comes with the territory.
LucasFilm wasn't a company geared towards kids, Disney is. As mentioned above, if it's run as a separate brand they'd allow more creative control but it doesn't look like that will be the case:
"The present intent is for Lucasfilm employees to remain in their current locations. Future films will be co-branded by both the Disney and Lucasfilm names, much like Disney has done with Pixar."
No more incest, maybe no more horrible deaths or severed arms. Nothing too scary because we don't want to frighten the little kids before they go to bed. I want them to go dark like with the last Batman, lightsaber decapitations and all. They can make two different versions I suppose. Go ahead Disney, put Ashton Kutcher in the kiddie Disney one but make a violent Lucasfilm one for the grown ups.
What people need to be talking about is the Disney brainwash. They get you as a kid with their movies- frozen for girls and cars for boys- then you graduate to a tween and you're marvel heavy or Hannah Montana (or whatever it is now) Then you become an adult and they lock you in with ESPN or dancing with the stars. Have kids? Repeat the cycle.
That's one powerful company man....
Definitely, those characters never leave your head and you recommend them to your kids because there's nothing else that can so easily satisfy their incessant demands to be entertained. I've even read about there being paid membership sites making explicit images of Disney characters. They might not be officially Disney approved but there'll be some behind the scenes deals going on there.
Just face it people, freemium games are here to stay.
I'd rather pay for a game outright, but the situation is what it is. Freemium games make money for the developers.
I've been playing a few games that are freemium, and if you are good enough, then you will be kicking ass. You will even be kicking ass VS crappy players who lack talent but spend a lot of money.
I love RTS games and I've mentioned this before on this forum, but I've been playing World of Tanks Blitz a little bit, since it was released, and that game is freemium.
You don't need to spend anything to advance in that game, unless you want to. I've spent about $10 on that game so far, big deal. And I am kicking ass, and I am having fun while doing it.
Too broad. You're right about some freemium games, but there are others where it is impossible to progress without interminable waiting.
Too broad. You're right about some freemium games, but there are others where it is impossible to progress without interminable waiting.
You're right that there are some crappy ones, but all I'm saying is that there are some decent ones out there too.
If somebody comes across a game that they think is crappy, then don't play, problem solved. -)
The freemium model itself isn't the problem but how people implement it. Some developers don't like taking the risk that not enough people will pay money and so they try to force people into paying for something and that's when people say they'd have been as well asking for an upfront payment if they were going to force the payment anyway.
They had this model years ago with software and it's used more in desktop software where they just have a demo that can be fully unlocked with a payment. I actually don't mind that model because the problem with standalone game demos is you have to do whatever you did in the demo all over again in the full game. The downside to this setup with games though is you can usually only play the first levels, which might not be as good as later ones and lead to poor reviews.
The problem with the upfront payment model is that a lot of the time you have to go by reviews and they aren't always accurate. Take Watch Dogs for example:
but the reason it's still low is because of the deluge of people that rate it as 0/10 to try and bring the score down because they didn't think it lived up to their expectations. If you have a fast enough GPU, it looks good and the gameplay is fine if you apply the right upgrades:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Skip to 16:00 in the second video to see the water effects. That doesn't deserve 0/10. It wouldn't work as a freemium game though because there's nothing they could force you to buy in-game that would come close to the game price. The silent spec-ops weapons are worthwhile so they could have made that a DLC but they wouldn't cost $60.
Freemium is going to cover these kind of mobile games that try to get you addicted to gameplay so you keep paying up and these developers are going to turn it into a dirty word, they pretty much have already. People now have a worse perception before a purchase of freemium games where they are forced to pay $0.99 in-game than games where they have to pay $60 upfront because the former is unexpected. When you download a freemium game, you are downloading a game under the assumption that it's free. When you pay for a game upfront, you are making your value judgement first and the only disappointment is if you feel you paid too much for it.
I know it's catchy to say "Disney ruins everything"- but I still haven't seen any examples where they've ruined anything. All I get are superman, back to the future and indiana jones references- none of which were done by Disney.
I can see where they've greatly improved things- particularly with Marvel- the only other live-action "franchise" they've purchased.
I don't think Disney ruins everything because I really don't care much for Disney. It may be blasphemy, but I couldn't care less about anything from Pixar, so I don't have any complaints about Disney there.
As for Star Wars, George himself whored it out for a billion toys and licenced stuff, including the extended universe, which I never ever got into. But the movies, the original trilogy, are still amazing.
Even though there was a great deal of disappointment with the prequels (and I personally felt they got progressively worse and felt Revenge of the Sith was the absolute low-point, young "Annie" not withstanding), the movies at least had been spaced out enough.
Disney releasing a new Star Wars movie every year is going to burn out guys like me and franchise fatigue is likely to set in.
And going by what I saw in Star Trek: Into Darkness, I am not too thrilled with J.J. directing the movie. It may end up being a pretty movie without balls.
All Disney stuff also seems overpriced generally. I mean, Marvel TPBs are always more expensive than DC TBPs, at least here, but with Disney taking over Marvel, even the movies are priced such that I have to think twice. For example, Avengers Blu-ray seems to be stuck at $35 and just doesn't seem to come down.
And now there are so many apps being released for Star Wars - some straight up purchases and some with that horrible 'freemium' model.
So, like I said, they are whoring Star Wars out to get back the $4B they gave George.
Comments
The new star treks were good- commercially and critically. And I'm all for a new Star Wars- why the heck not. The originally trilogy still holds up fine- if you look at the franchise itself- it's already ruined because of 1-3. This will do nothing but help it- if it's terrible- we do what we do now. We say "4-6 is all you should watch"
Iron Man 3- their first foray in the Marvel world- was slightly better than Iron Man 2 (based on Rot. Tom)
The Avengers
Thor 2 was better than Thor
Captain America Winter Soldier was immensely better than the first Capt America- and probably the best Marvel film to date- with the exception of possibly.....
Guardians of the Galaxy- which was incredible.
Iron Man 3 was the worst of the trilogy. So boring. The 1st 2 films, the suits were near on indestructible and Stark was crazy but in control. Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken. What a crock of crap.
I couldn't wait for Thor 2 to finish, again, so boring. The 1st one was alright.
I only watched Captain America 2 a few weeks back and can't really remember anything from it.
The Avengers was a great film and I have high hopes for Guardians.
Yeah, that bothered me. What bothered me most was Tony getting the shrapnel taken out of his chest. That’s sort of… his thing.
Oh, first movie. Swapping out the cave reactor for the civilization reactor. Is there something I’m missing about anatomy, or were we just expected to believe that a person’s heart is SIX INCHES BELOW THE SKIN? The sheer depth of the fusion reactor assembly in his chest… you look at the scene and you go, “Okay, am I a freak or something? I can pull up my shirt and SEE my heart beating, yet Tony’s heart is apparently THAT deep in his body?”
I’m sick of Disney garbagizing everything they own. Rather, everything they’ve purchased and amalgamated.
I'm 100% with you. I wanted to say that the title should read - "Disney whores 'Star Wars'...". But they have to get back their $4B.
The only thing that actually is a plus is that we may actually see the pre-Special Edition OTs on Blu-ray finally. In truth though, I am not overly fussed about those versions. I just bought the DVD set with the Empire Of Dreams disc and skipped every other release.
The only thing that actually is a plus is that we may actually see the pre-Special Edition OTs on Blu-ray finally.
Pshh. Who needs DVD or Blu-ray?
Bigger discs means more data, of course. And yes, I have all three.
It looks to be an exact clone, probably just white-labeled version of the original.
The theme of the post was loosely around staying true to what made the originals iconic, there were a number of Superman examples, hence the skip note. The link was J.J. Abrams wanting to depart from the Superman story in Superman Returns and now working on Star Wars. He might try to do the same but it depends on if he's working from a script made a while ago.
You can't just say why not do it because a great many sequels are better not done like Back to the Future 4 I mentioned earlier. This almost happened with Toy Story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story_3#Production
Before Disney bought Pixar, they were going to make Toy Story 3 without them.
The risk is that they go in a direction that screws up the originals because it becomes official.
Is that what they say about Police Academy? There were only 8 of those. Star Wars could end up having 12 parts. At least when there's just 6, you can say to skip a few, when there's 12, new generations will only have seen the newer ones.
When it turns out well like they did with the first two Batman movies in the most recent series, it's all good but those aren't really changing things as they are reboots. When they add to franchises, it's more like Indiana Jones:
[VIDEO]
They make these 'everything wrong' compilations about loads of films but you can see the mentions about the use of clichés and references to existing movies in the franchise. It cheapens the whole thing. They even had a competition running on the new Star Wars movie where a fan gets to be in it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/star-wars-7-lucky-fan-joining-cast-revealed-in-jj-abrams-tweet-along-with-prop-hint-9664218.html
They even had a competition running on the new Star Wars movie where a fan gets to be in it:
So what? It was for charity and raised $5M. The lucky fan gets to be a slightly glorified extra.
Iron Man 3 was the worst of the trilogy. So boring. The 1st 2 films, the suits were near on indestructible and Stark was crazy but in control. Then, in number 3, the suits were being destroyed at a rate of knots and Stark was all precious and broken. What a crock of crap.
I couldn't wait for Thor 2 to finish, again, so boring. The 1st one was alright.
I only watched Captain America 2 a few weeks back and can't really remember anything from it.
The Avengers was a great film and I have high hopes for Guardians.
Like I said- critically- Iron Man 3 was better than 2. Although I think they both were lacking. IM3 was also Disney's first foray into the Marvel universe. No one can argue that they haven't added to it since acquiring Marvel Pictures. Financially and Critically- it is a win all the way around- and better than before.
This might not be your opinion, personally- but you are clearly in the vast minority if you think it's gotten worse. Check the Box office numbers, critics ratings and fan ratings on Rotten Tomatoes if you think you're in the majority.
You can't just say why not do it because a great many sequels are better not done like Back to the Future 4 I mentioned earlier. This almost happened with Toy Story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Story_3#Production
Before Disney bought Pixar, they were going to make Toy Story 3 without them.
Jobs also said he wasn't going to allow Disney to distribute any more Pixar films... then a year and a half later when he inked the Ratatouille deal. It all seemed more like posturing than actually doing anything as they were having a big pissing match back in '04.
I'm 100% with you. I wanted to say that the title should read - "Disney whores 'Star Wars'...". But they have to get back their $4B.
I know it's catchy to say "Disney ruins everything"- but I still haven't seen any examples where they've ruined anything. All I get are superman, back to the future and indiana jones references- none of which were done by Disney.
I can see where they've greatly improved things- particularly with Marvel- the only other live-action "franchise" they've purchased.
I like Star Wars, the early Star Wars films, not the newer ones, and I downloaded this game just to check it out quickly, and it's not bad at all.
It's like CoC with a Star Wars Theme. I think that this game will do pretty good.
Yah, I haven't paid a penny but have been playing it quite a bit. Rough around the edges but decent.
[VIDEO]
Disney has a certain way of putting across a story:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18589_7-classic-disney-movies-based-r-rated-stories.html
They sanitise storylines for kids and they are too mainstream. They were pitched Back to the Future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future
"Gale and Zemeckis finally decided to pitch Back to the Future to Disney. "They told us that a mother falling in love with her son was not appropriate for a family film under the Disney banner," Gale said."
Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?
[VIDEO]
Pretty selective on your incest preference Disney. There's a chance the Back to the Future decision being made in the 80s might have had something to do with it but I bet they'd have bought both franchises up after seeing how popular they were back then without any problem. That attitude stifles creativity before movies are made.
Disney's ownership of Marvel hasn't done much harm but it's not like the movies are anywhere near the DC Comics / Warner Brothers movies.
They own Indiana Jones now too so they'll definitely ruin that eventually:
http://www.hitfix.com/news/disney-says-new-indiana-jones-film-likely-2-or-3-years-away
Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones and he's 72 now. Their only choice is to recast Indiana Jones or make some weird Indie Junior movie. Shia LaBeouf has gone nuts so it won't be him thankfully:
http://www.nerdist.com/2014/03/rumor-disneylucasfilm-to-recast-indiana-jones-with-bradley-cooper/
Maybe Disney deserves the benefit of the doubt here and maybe they'll make great movies out of these franchises but their company is driven towards making movies for kids, that's not who comic book movies are for.
Oh but Luke Skywalker kissing his sister is ok?
A point on this that may seem like splitting hairs, but which actually defines Disney’s business practices and has for decades.
“Under the Disney banner.” That’s an important distinction. Back to the Future, released with the Disney logo in front of it, may have been found inappropriate for that reason, but Lucasfilm properties, which won’t have that, will be treated differently. Disney’s child companies have absolutely no problem with all manner of questionable content.
Miramax, for example, released these films under Disney ownership:
A movie about a woman being impregnated while drunk.
A woman who leaves her family, returns to have her children mock arrest her ex husband’s new girlfriend and generally causes emotional trauma all over, eventually committing suicide.
SAY WHAT AGAIN. SAY WHAT AGAIN, I DARE YOU. I DOUBLE DARE YOU, MOTHERFUCKER.
Gay Cuban communists
An NC-17 rated movie about sexually active early teenagers who abuse drugs, give each other HIV, and bait homosexuals
And that’s just one of their companies. So as long as it doesn’t have the word “Disney” and the castle logo at the front, they couldn’t care less the contents of anything but their wallets.
Oh, yes, who can forget. When Disney bought a controlling share of Viewer’s Choice–a channel that played comedies and action films–they decided to expand it into softcore pornography.
Lol... So basically- no, you don't have an example of where they ruined anything.
As for Star Wars in disney land (and Disney World)- perhaps you should read the reviews on that. It was done to the 9s and was absolutely spectacular. It also clearly didn't ruin anything. It was better than any comic con- and yes, it was geared for the Tweens.... It's freakin Disneyland. Hah
Telling you- they deserve the benefit of the doubt for sure. I honestly don't understand where the massive hysteria is coming from. But, of course, it's Star Wars- so that comes with the territory.
Slingblade is mirimax. Need we say more.
What people need to be talking about is the Disney brainwash. They get you as a kid with their movies- frozen for girls and cars for boys- then you graduate to a tween and you're marvel heavy or Hannah Montana (or whatever it is now) Then you become an adult and they lock you in with ESPN or dancing with the stars. Have kids? Repeat the cycle.
That's one powerful company man....
Ah, yes, but that’s after Disney’s sale of the company.
I’m less concerned about that, as I’m not a worthless pile of dreck like some parents seem to be*, but more about the brainwashing they do to their own employees. You mentioned Hannah Montana. Miley Cyrus has “graduated” to fellating blowup dolls on stage and doing fully nude music videos.
What values were instilled in her by her former corporation, would you say?
*To clarify, I am a worthless pile of dreck, just not as a parent.
I didn't make that claim and I'd expect most prior acquisitions to have been kid-oriented but I do think their comedic use of iconic characters ruins them a little as shown in the above ad and I expect future ruination by them.
[VIDEO]
Yeah it looks ok, the robot at 1:10 is pretty cool. The voices sound odd but they can't have the same actors forever.
LucasFilm wasn't a company geared towards kids, Disney is. As mentioned above, if it's run as a separate brand they'd allow more creative control but it doesn't look like that will be the case:
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Lucasfilm
"The present intent is for Lucasfilm employees to remain in their current locations. Future films will be co-branded by both the Disney and Lucasfilm names, much like Disney has done with Pixar."
No more incest, maybe no more horrible deaths or severed arms. Nothing too scary because we don't want to frighten the little kids before they go to bed. I want them to go dark like with the last Batman, lightsaber decapitations and all. They can make two different versions I suppose. Go ahead Disney, put Ashton Kutcher in the kiddie Disney one but make a violent Lucasfilm one for the grown ups.
Definitely, those characters never leave your head and you recommend them to your kids because there's nothing else that can so easily satisfy their incessant demands to be entertained. I've even read about there being paid membership sites making explicit images of Disney characters. They might not be officially Disney approved but there'll be some behind the scenes deals going on there.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/dirty-disney-the-subliminal-messages-hidden-in-kids-films/story-e6frfmvr-1226908909970
Just face it people, freemium games are here to stay.
I'd rather pay for a game outright, but the situation is what it is. Freemium games make money for the developers.
I've been playing a few games that are freemium, and if you are good enough, then you will be kicking ass. You will even be kicking ass VS crappy players who lack talent but spend a lot of money.
I love RTS games and I've mentioned this before on this forum, but I've been playing World of Tanks Blitz a little bit, since it was released, and that game is freemium.
You don't need to spend anything to advance in that game, unless you want to. I've spent about $10 on that game so far, big deal. And I am kicking ass, and I am having fun while doing it.
Too broad. You're right about some freemium games, but there are others where it is impossible to progress without interminable waiting.
Too broad. You're right about some freemium games, but there are others where it is impossible to progress without interminable waiting.
You're right that there are some crappy ones, but all I'm saying is that there are some decent ones out there too.
If somebody comes across a game that they think is crappy, then don't play, problem solved. -)
The freemium model itself isn't the problem but how people implement it. Some developers don't like taking the risk that not enough people will pay money and so they try to force people into paying for something and that's when people say they'd have been as well asking for an upfront payment if they were going to force the payment anyway.
They had this model years ago with software and it's used more in desktop software where they just have a demo that can be fully unlocked with a payment. I actually don't mind that model because the problem with standalone game demos is you have to do whatever you did in the demo all over again in the full game. The downside to this setup with games though is you can usually only play the first levels, which might not be as good as later ones and lead to poor reviews.
The problem with the upfront payment model is that a lot of the time you have to go by reviews and they aren't always accurate. Take Watch Dogs for example:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs
User reviews are very negative because the game is poorly optimized for the PC. It's a bit higher rating for the consoles:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/watch-dogs
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/watch-dogs
but the reason it's still low is because of the deluge of people that rate it as 0/10 to try and bring the score down because they didn't think it lived up to their expectations. If you have a fast enough GPU, it looks good and the gameplay is fine if you apply the right upgrades:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Skip to 16:00 in the second video to see the water effects. That doesn't deserve 0/10. It wouldn't work as a freemium game though because there's nothing they could force you to buy in-game that would come close to the game price. The silent spec-ops weapons are worthwhile so they could have made that a DLC but they wouldn't cost $60.
Freemium is going to cover these kind of mobile games that try to get you addicted to gameplay so you keep paying up and these developers are going to turn it into a dirty word, they pretty much have already. People now have a worse perception before a purchase of freemium games where they are forced to pay $0.99 in-game than games where they have to pay $60 upfront because the former is unexpected. When you download a freemium game, you are downloading a game under the assumption that it's free. When you pay for a game upfront, you are making your value judgement first and the only disappointment is if you feel you paid too much for it.
I know it's catchy to say "Disney ruins everything"- but I still haven't seen any examples where they've ruined anything. All I get are superman, back to the future and indiana jones references- none of which were done by Disney.
I can see where they've greatly improved things- particularly with Marvel- the only other live-action "franchise" they've purchased.
I don't think Disney ruins everything because I really don't care much for Disney. It may be blasphemy, but I couldn't care less about anything from Pixar, so I don't have any complaints about Disney there.
As for Star Wars, George himself whored it out for a billion toys and licenced stuff, including the extended universe, which I never ever got into. But the movies, the original trilogy, are still amazing.
Even though there was a great deal of disappointment with the prequels (and I personally felt they got progressively worse and felt Revenge of the Sith was the absolute low-point, young "Annie" not withstanding), the movies at least had been spaced out enough.
Disney releasing a new Star Wars movie every year is going to burn out guys like me and franchise fatigue is likely to set in.
And going by what I saw in Star Trek: Into Darkness, I am not too thrilled with J.J. directing the movie. It may end up being a pretty movie without balls.
All Disney stuff also seems overpriced generally. I mean, Marvel TPBs are always more expensive than DC TBPs, at least here, but with Disney taking over Marvel, even the movies are priced such that I have to think twice. For example, Avengers Blu-ray seems to be stuck at $35 and just doesn't seem to come down.
And now there are so many apps being released for Star Wars - some straight up purchases and some with that horrible 'freemium' model.
So, like I said, they are whoring Star Wars out to get back the $4B they gave George.
/Rant.