i don't understand why people don't like this movie

8

endless list of movies → P.S. I Love You (2008)

∟ We’re so arrogant, aren’t we? So afraid of age, we do everything we… We don’t realize what a privilege it is to grow old with someone. Someone who doesn’t drive you to commit murder or doesn’t humiliate you beyond repair.

  • What she says: I'm fine
  • What she means: Why in the world was everyone so cool with Stitch, who was supposed to be a dog, hula dancing and fire dancing with all his limbs out? How did the town, no, the world react to the giant spaceship battle in the end of the movie? They weren't in one private, secluded area, literally anyone or everyone on that island could've seen both ships going all over the place did Cobra and his buddies like...memory wipe everyone in town or were they so chill with the fact that aliens were a thing that no one ever made a fuss about it? I just don't understand why everything was okay when Pleakley made it an obvious point many many times that they had to blend in instead of letting people know aliens were a thing I don't understa

emsiecat  asked:

#ALSO BOTFA ISN'T CANON THIS IS WHAT I TELL MYSELF. <--- true! Certain bits are good though, and definitely canon. Like the Bagginshield, Fili's lovely hair, Kili's badassery, Fili's goat steppin' skills. The good stuff, that's allowed.

HI DARLIN! 

Originally posted by plumkat

Hmm. Yes, you are correct. 

Perhaps I should change my perception..

#ONLY CERTAIN PARTS ARE CANON EXCEPT FOR THE DEATHY-DEATH SCENES ONLY THE GOOD STUFF IS CANON.

There. 

I mean, wasn’t there a draft of The Hobbit where Tolkien never was going to <insert evil word here that shall not be spoken in front of the words Fili and Kili> Fili and Kili? So, like, in theory, doesn’t that mean THAT’S CANON?

Right?

RIGHT???

I mean, by my logic, yes. Yes it is canon. 

To be perfectly honest, it’s been so long since I’ve actually watched the end of BOTFA (I usually stop the movie after Fili goes “I’ve got this”, because I like to see how beautiful he is, and how his braids fly magically about his head. Thats basically the end of the movie for me - he goes and kicks some orc’s asses, BECAUSE YOU’RE HONESTLY GOING TO TELL ME THAT FILI, WHO HAS A LITERAL BATALLION ON HIS PERSON AT ALL TIMES, GET OVERTAKEN BY LIKE, WHAT? THREE, FOUR ORCS? NO. NO HE DOESN’T NOT OKAY HE TOTALLY BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF ALL OF THEM and comes out, grabs Kili, they kick Azog in the dick, Azogs down, Thorin stabs him in the eyeballs, blinding Azog (as one would be in that situation, probably), and then he painfully wanders off and falls down a cliff, dwarves win, Eagles fly in with little murals saying BILBO WILL YOU MARRY ME and then Thorin and Bilbo get married, Fili and Kili twerk, it’s all good, everything’s fine, movie’s over  WOW WHAT A GREAT MOVIE!)…ANYWAY…it’s been so long since I’ve actually watched the end of BOTFA that I seriously find it really hard to accept the ending as canon. Like, seriously, in my mind they’re all alive and fine so I don’t know why everyone keeps saying they’re dead. 

No, they’re not. 

I’m honestly really confused. 

Originally posted by nyanpasuminasan

anonymous asked:

I'm sorry about all of this that I'm about to say I really am, but I don't see the purpose in obsessing over Dark, like I see the fun stuff that Mark does with it like the Dat with Mark series, but why are you all theorizing about a made up character (I know that Dark could be a metaphor for depression and such but still) I'm sorry if this seems like I'm attacking you, but I just don't understand

there’s no real purpose, it’s the same about theorizing for characters in tv shows and movies. like, it’s just a way for people to express their creativity and look and information presented with us. there’s not much known about dark and his character, so people theorize and create headcanons about him to expand upon his character.

we know that dark isn’t real, that he’s just a character that mark plays, but it’s still interesting to imagine the idea that he is real, that all the characters are. it’s like the movies and tv shows. yes, we know they aren’t real, but it’s good fun to imagine what it would be like if they were.

that’s the power of creativity, my dude. 💙

anonymous asked:

I don't understand, why don't people like Benedict Cumberbatch being the new Dr Strange? D: (I may need some education, for I know absolutely nothing about Dr Strange)

I think this article can sum it up better than I can;

“Doctor Strange is typically assumed to be white, but some fans argue that his race is ambiguous. At any rate, there’s nothing stopping Marvel Studios casting a person of color in the role, since they can basically do whatever they want. Every single Marvel movie to date has made drastic changes when adapting characters and storylines from the comics, so why not give Doctor Strange a new ethnic background? This wouldn’t require any major changes to his backstory (Stephen Strange was originally a neurosurgeon from Nebraska), but would be a meaningful gesture to the huge number of Marvel fans who feel excluded by the franchise’s all-white lineup. 

As a result of arguments like this, an increasing number of people have been hoping that a non-white actor such as Oded Fehr (The Mummy) or Pedro Pascal (Game of Thrones) would be cast. Right now the most-reblogged post on Tumblr’s Doctor Strange tag isn’t a news report, it’s a post bemoaning the death of this type of non-white fan casting. Post No. 2 is simply a photo of Oded Fehr and a reference to Adele. (“We could’ve had it all…”)

Of course, it doesn’t help that Cumberbatch is already the face of whitewashed casting, after being hired to play Khan Noonien Singh in Star Trek Into Darkness—another franchise dominated by white male characters.”

TL;DR- Nothing against Bendystraw Cucumber as a human being, but he’s such a boring choice and Marvel could have been more inclusive.

noodle-pooch  asked:

Seeing as someone recently asked you a question about Tarantino I think now is a good time for me to ask this. Why do people think Tarantino movies are so good? Don't get me wrong I don't think they are bad exactly, I just don't understand why people consider movies like reservoir dogs classics. I've looked around a bit on the internet and haven't been able to find an explanation. You are a lot smarter than I am so I'm hoping you can enlighten me on why they are loved so much.

Generally speaking, if you can’t figure out why something is good or bad, that’s when you should read reviews. The job of a critic is to explain why he or she things something is good or bad, usually giving context to the thing’s existence within its genre, the medium, or culture in general. I think the concept of “criticism” has been extremely obscured by the internet, with people reviewing everything from teaser trailers for upcoming movies to new Oreo flavors.

As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes; everyone’s got one, and you really shouldn’t go waving yours in peoples’ faces. That being said, some people out there have made careers out their assholes (Jenna Haze, Asa Akira, Christy Mack, the list goes on) and maybe you’ve become fond of one of these assholes, and you go out of your way to look at it now and then. Does that mean you want to see everyone’s asshole? Of course not! Criticism’s just like that; anybody can spout off about whether or not they liked something, but it takes a little more effort to A) know what the fuck you’re talking about B) communicate your thoughts in a way that lets other people know what the fuck you’re talking about.

That being said, Tarantino is a famously prolific movie buff. It shows in his work, because he manages to side-step common tropes and cliches, while drawing inspiration from/paying homage to past work. Like, what is Pulp Fiction? Is is a comedy, a drama, an action movie? It’s sort of a crime thriller, but half the time it’s just people bullshitting about hamburgers and foot massages. It’s a cohesive story, told completely out of order. The dialogue’s believable, and the characters, even when completely deplorable, are fleshed out, instead of just being “PROTAGONIST” “LOVE INTEREST” “VILLAIN.” The movie doesn’t break the fourth wall, but it seems to know it’s there.

If you go watch Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon, read an Elmore Leonard novel or two, and then watch some exploitation movies from the 70s, you’ll see Pulp Fiction’s DNA. It might be hard to tell now, twenty years later, but when Pulp Fiction came out, nobody had seen anything like it, and it changed how movies are made. Like when The Matrix came out, nobody had really seen “wire-fu” martial arts in a western movie. When Star Wars came out, nobody had done a sci-fi movie with a “used future” setting that actually looked good.

My pal vaccerelli on here said something the other day about Tarantino that I thought was good – he makes the kind of movies he wants to see. He doesn’t pander to the audience, desperately attempting to give them what they want like some shitty distant relative who sucks at picking out birthday presents, he’s just like “here’s a Blaxsploitation Kung-Fu Western Revenge Epic starring a blonde chick in a track suit” or “here’s a World War II movie that has a goddamn David Bowie song in it because I feel like it.” The truth about good art is that it’s frequently not democratic, it’s one individual’s selfish vision. In the case of filmmaking, that individual has an uphill battle to get creative control. Tarantino is an example of someone who’s managed to come out on top.

There are plenty of people who go to the movies to see some attractive actors talking and then maybe there’s an explosion and the fat guy does something funny and then there’s a resolution to whatever problem they had, and those people walk out of the theatre two hours later and twelve bucks poorer, and the following monday when somebody asks them what they did that weekend, they say “Oh, I saw that new Transformers movie” and when that person asks if it was good, they go “yeah, it was alright.”

On a related note, McDonalds is still in business because not everybody thinks too hard about what they consume and sometimes they just want something hamburger-shaped that comes with a Coke. But some people have eaten at lots of different restaurants and they’ve had a wide variety of different hamburger-shaped things, so when some new Hawaiian burger joint opens up, those people are eager to go check it out because they’ve never had a burger made with fish sauce that comes on a brioche bun topped with pickled jalepeños and a fried egg, and they’re tired of the same predictable burgers McDonald’s serves.

Anyway, in a nutshell, Tarantino movies are good because they’re Tarantino Movies, not Tarantino’s Producer’s Movies or Movies Tarantino Thought Everyone Would Enjoy. Tarantino is a guy who really likes movies, and wants to make movies that haven’t been made before. That doesn’t mean you have to like his movies, because they’re not for everyone, but they’re extremely distinctive.