Jump to content

Disonoid 3000

TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Disonoid 3000

  1. Again (kind of...again...I don't remember if I said this before the edit), I think it just comes down to "Return to form" being vague and in this instance being taken to mean two different things. I read it and interpreted "Pixar as a studio is back to the level it used to be on", you read it and seem to have interpreted "Pixar made a good movie again".
  2. I originally had an "Except for Cars" aside in that post somewhere, I guess it got left out after the seventh or so time I rewrote it, my apologies. A Bug's Life's hard to judge the general opinion of because it's generally kind of ignored (though if we want to go the simplified Rotten Tomatoes route it's a 92%). The point still stands, though. They got their reputation because the few failures were the rarity. Which is also the reason why people focus on the recent stuff more; it's kind of hard to worry that Cars is a sign Pixar's slipping when we know their next four movies turned out much, much better. This problem seems entirely based around people interpreting a claim two different ways. I don't think anyone is doubting the critics when they say Inside Out is an amazing movie (I'm definitely not, I came to that conclusion long before they said it), just that one of the interpretations of what they said stretches beyond whether or not it is an amazing movie. And, in the realm of opinions, I liked Cars better than MU. At least Cars was funny.
  3. Also, and this is probably a more controversial opinion, I don't think Pixar can really, truly be be back to what they once were until they stop the sequels. Again, I could be wrong, but I'm also pretty sure originality and freshness, with some riskiness thrown in every once in a while, was another part why people liked them so much. I'm sure I'd appreciate the moral better if it wasn't smacked on a pile of cliches. I should never have to see a movie where the amount of times I guess what will happen next is higher than the amount of times I laugh.
  4. It seems like jumping the gun to get excited over Pixar returning to form after one movie. Maybe I'm wrong, but I generally got the impression Pixar wasn't so well known for being awesome because they occasionally made a fantastic movie, it was because they made fantastic movies every single time. Inside Out is sandwiched between the mediocre/bad, and the unknown. And said unknown involves Cars 3, Toy Story 4, and Finding Dory. If they earn heaps of praise for those (and the other upcoming films) then I'll be more open to the idea Pixar's back.
  5. That it? Why was he so desperate to hide his Downunda-ness that he was willing to sound stupid all the time?
  6. Poor Vector. I can't even mutter up anything else to say, just poor Vector. Something about the purple thing makes me think it should be in a Dr. Seuss book. Maybe it's how wonky it looks.
  7. So Ken's dialogue's actually gotten better? This stuff makes "Devil dung!" sound natural and intelligent.
  8. So um...would I be a jerk to ask that we take the Good Dinosaur images down? Cause, those were leaks, and Pixar's apparently been trying to get them taken down. Of course, it's just one, fairly quiet forum thread, so it probably won't matter either way. In other news, two new Inside Out clips; Spoiler free. And you might be able to see the movie a few days early with bonus content depending on whether or not any nearby theaters for you are offering. Kind of expensive, though.
  9. Actually seeing the pages is hilarious. It looks like Knuckles putting on a bunch of costume pieces and playing out all the echidna parts himself. And I love how younger Knuckles looks exactly like current Knuckles except smaller. Cause that's how kids work alright. I believe that should be "Wit'ee Ua'zurnaim".
  10. It's funny to think people got so on his case for that Lien-Da and the other drawings in a similar style. After everything we've seen, they don't look so bad now. In comparison, I mean.
  11. Who hears the name "Archimedes" and thinks "he-she-it"? Pretty sure that's pretty solidly a dude's name. Ken's inability to understand sayings astounds me. Waking up on the wrong side of the bed means someone's cranky, not that they upset the delicate balance of nature and made it hate them or whatever Knuckles is implying there. "Here's mud in your eye!" That's a new one. And it apparently means "Here's to you", so...don't think it fits here, either. Even as a quip. I thought it was J. Jonah Jameson practicing for when he finally goes out to catch Spider-Man himself.
  12. Don't worry, all we need to do is just draw goatees on our avatars and we can all stay.
  13. I don't think I'd ever peg Chica as most insane. The teeth thing are presumably not things she or the others can really control (her jaw's structured differently than their's, they can't change that and neither can she). With the poses, she has some really tame ones, and the others have some pretty sinister looking ones. Plus, points can be made about Foxy's odd habits, or Bonnie being most active, etc. marking them as most insane. Also, from what I've seen, a lot of people would disagree on her being the most disturbing Withered. Faceless Bonnie tends to get the most love in that department. And I keep wanting to say that that doesn't make sense because of one thing or another that's already been established, but...Scott...thin air...pull...All things are possible when writing by the seat of your pants.
  14. I think I'm fully convinced Scott's purposefully trying to make them so over the top it's hilarious now. Seriously, the freakin' cupcake has razor teeth.
  15. Ken working on movies and his terrible designs makes me wonder; anyone else kind of curious how things would have gone down if Dreamworks had accepted his proposed Sonic movie? I know it's probably impossible to tell if they'd actually allow him to have any input (especially since it wasn't his property), but assuming they did, movies almost always change from their original ideas, if not entirely then at least partially, and Dreamworks (as far as I know) knows better than to have clone characters (the movie involved Knuckles' immediate family). Dude would probably go nuts as he attempted to keep anything from changing from his ideas. And to this day he'd be complaining about it.
  16. If they're coming from someone making it from their home then I understand it. I just kind of assumed that wasn't the arrangement, since they didn't really limit the amount that can be bought very much (limit five per person, but considering a place like the Disney Store limits some plushes to two per person it doesn't seem like much of a limit) and that's a lot of plushies for someone (or even multiple someones) to hand make.
  17. They're the first in a series. They're twenty five bucks. Crud. I've love one (well, I'd love a Bonnie), but twenty five bucks? What about that thing makes it cost so much?
  18. And it's only compounded by Flynn's idea sounding genuinely interesting, and its big gimmick being fan feedback having an effect.
  19. I thought the thing with the soundtrack was that they somehow lost/deleted the files or something and didn't have time to recreate them so they went with crummy remixes. I don't know where I read that specifically, though.
  20. I'd be willing to bet money that at least part of the real reason he doesn't even try kickstarter is because he doesn't want his project sitting there with no or very, very little money pledged. Donating would require no interaction with other people, so he couldn't pull the "They're just too mature to talk to other people" card, and it'd be pretty solid proof no one's interested.
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.