>Movie is just a solid intro story, not bogged down by a complicated plot
>Not up it's own ass about super-specific lore, allowing for fun easter eggs
>Creates defined but open world that can lead to any number of spin-offs
As a fan of any media property the worst thing an adaption can do is go "What if the book/game/anime, but real actors?". I'm glad it's was a "Mario movie" vs a "Movie about the Mario franchise". Of course, Mario is a franchise that can get away with a free-spirited product compared to something like Zelda. Were people really looking for something else?
Why does being simple and unambitious warrant a movie getting a gold star?
I don't look for "gold stars" from everything that I watch. Some things can just be "good" like a basic cheese pizza
Agreed, just a solid product
>I don't look for "gold stars" from everything that I watch. Some things can just be "good" like a basic cheese pizza
Yes but the post has an air of "they actually did it RIGHT," as if the movie is a testament to how something should be done.
Maybe it didn't really do anything WRONG (leaving aside the 80s music--which even then I can get why it's there) but I don't know if I'd point to it and say "if you want to see how video games are to be adapted as cinema this is exhibit A."
What is exhibit A? That is, what is the best existing video game adaptation to cinema?
>Yes but the post has an air of "they actually did it RIGHT," as if the movie is a testament to how something should be done
It's because it's veryyyyy easy to make a bad movie, and with a franchise like Mario it would've been understandable if Illumination stuffed one-too-many references that slowed the film down or made the audience confused. A good example being the "Mario Kart" scene. Quick references to MK8, neat Rainbow Road setting and "haha there's the blue turtle shell!". If they'd made Rainbow Road go into space or had item boxes on the road it would be more fanservice but pointlessly bloated from a film perspective
>It's because it's veryyyyy easy to make a bad movie
And it's not just as easy to make a mediocre one?
In a world where every big animated movie tries to be the piece of cultural media that changes the way we see the world with all the political subtlety of a hammer, it's refreshing to see a movie that knows what it is and isn't up its own ass, simple as.
Feels like a low bar.
Not judging, mind you.
I appreciate high quality, but to spit on the decent and functional is just misanthropic to me. And besides the movie isn’t really just plain or normal, it’s simple in structure but delivers a crazy spectacle of light sound and fun
That's not what misanthropic means. If you enjoyed it, more power to you.
It’s misanthropic to be disparaging of the normal.
Well after the 90s movie I cant blame them for going as simple as possible, it's all it needed to be.
Now a Zelda movie of this same quality would be pretty lame, since Zelda inherently has a lot more depth baked in
I imagine a successful Zelda movie would have a very simple Zelda formula plot but would mostly deliver the Zelda mood slowly and with a sense of reverence. Slow shots of link going through the woods, exploring a ruin, punctuated by swordplay, they have the music going.
I guess yeah, I wonder if they'd go for OoT since it's the most famous Zelda game (or was before BOTW)
>it's refreshing to see a movie that knows what it is and isn't up its own ass, simple as.
Did you miss the 6-8 movies that illumination released before mario? Its not a novel concept
> every big animated movie tries to be the piece of cultural media
name 3, /misc/ tourist
>Redditspacing
>/pol/-obsession
Anyone else notice that after Reddit shit the bed, the number of people b***hing about /misc/ has skyrocketed?
its happening in /tg/ and Cinemaphile as well. We have a vermin infestation
>no argument
>Durr durr durr pol durr durr durr
>>Frick off
>NOT AN ARGUMENT!
still no argument
Spiderverse and most Pixar movies.
i dont follow? elaborate
This is such a stupid argument. The sheer apathy of the masses to accept movies like this that barely do the bare minimum.
Actually, this movie has almost no story. We should demand more from movie studios. Being okay with this movie is literally being okay with mediocrity. Mediocrity is where art goes to die.
>The sheer apathy of the masses to accept movies like this that barely do the bare minimum.
Is it that apathetic? The masses have more important things too care about than movies.
The problem is that nobody gives a shit about fricking anything. You and people like you don't give a shit about fricking anything, not even an argument to the contrary. Get fricked you worthless limp homosexual.
The movie is literally only held up by its references, it's hardly even a story. There's no story because the movie already assumes people know about the characters (which they're right in a way because the movie was nothing but branding).
Luigi was completely underdeveloped as a character, so was Peach and so was Bowser.
>What’s it supposed to be anyways?
A story, which this movie barely fricking had.
>What complications or depth or whatever did you have in mind?
They could have used Foreman Spike as a dramatic parallel to Bowser, they could have used Peach's dynamic about her being the only other human in the mushroom kingdom as a way to build and grow character and get her more attached to Mario. They could have actually fricking developed the Mario Brothers.
If your argument is that a video game like
Mario yields such little to explore in the
confines of a 90 minute movie, then doesn't that totally negate it's purpose of existing as a movie in the first place? Why ever make a movie to begin with if that's the case? Money, obviously, we all know why, but why would one not be inclinded to be "cynical" of such a blatant cash grab that offers very little in terms of entertainment value like the Mario movie does?
My argument is that the content of a Mario product is colors, sounds, acrobatics, cheeriness, simple personable characters, and a party-like adventure through funky cartoon worlds. Nothing about how bowser took a wrong turn a long time ago in a way where Mario’s employer hadn’t in a way that puts a finger on the difference between kidnapping a woman and owning a business. Mario is literally the bing bing wahoo and i guess you’re just left shitting on the public at large now for the nerve to like an absurd and cartoony video game for what it is
>My argument is that the content of a Mario product is colors, sounds, acrobatics, cheeriness, simple personable characters, and a party-like adventure through funky cartoon worlds
This feels incredibly insulting to the entire idea of movies themselves. You're admitting that literally all you want is an eye candy movie to turn off your brain too. You're literally admitting that you're the lowest common denominator. Stop just turning off your brain and have standards you consoomer manchild.
>Mario is literally the bing bing wahoo and i guess you’re just left shitting on the public at large now for the nerve to like an absurd and cartoony video game for what it is.
I will absolutely shit on the majority of the public for liking godawful movies and having no critical thinking skills.
>insulting to the idea of movies themselves
That movies can be a color sound and character extravaganza? What’s offensive about that? You’ve got your cart before your horse, ‘oh it should be an honor to movies!’ What, like the Mario movie should compete with Citizen Kane? Because Kubrick showed 2001 in theaters, an unrelated video game movie has to study humanity through the jumpman? Movies are great and all, lots of valor and artistry there, but to say it’s wrong to take a big screen and just provide light fun with cool sounds and funny characters, you’re being reductive and pointless as shit. Turning Mario into something that honors Gone With the Wind is an awful idea, don’t take that as an insult against the greats either.
>That movies can be a color sound and character extravaganza? What’s offensive about that? You’ve got your cart before your horse, ‘oh it should be an honor to movies!’ What, like the Mario movie should compete with Citizen Kane? Because Kubrick showed 2001 in theaters, an unrelated video game movie has to study humanity through the jumpman? Movies are great and all, lots of valor and artistry there, but to say it’s wrong to take a big screen and just provide light fun with cool sounds and funny characters, you’re being reductive and pointless as shit. Turning Mario into something that honors Gone With the Wind is an awful idea, don’t take that as an insult against the greats either.
That's a lot of words for poor reading comprehension and a huge strawman. What's offensive is insulting the viewers intelligence by giving them shitty movies that do nothing in regards to story or having a meaningful message. Just colors, lights, flashing and references out the ass to substitute actual writing. You're not only insulting the intelligence of the audience, but it also insults other artists that put actual work into their own movies.
Is ice cream or a roller coaster insulting to you to?
I would rather not have someone fund 200 million into what's a scoop of ice cream. Maybe put that money and resources towards something better.
They literally didn't do a single thing with the actual world of the Mario games. Showing them off is not the same thing as using them to build characters and stories.
>I’d rather they spend
Don’t worry, the money wasn’t yours and they made it all back. Call the world idiots all you want, this movie works
>building characters
They built beloved characters over 30 years and none of them have been in a movie as themselves. You can play mine games with yourself if you want and say the movie has to stand alone, but you’ll be wrong in a world where it’s just the latest part of a beloved 30 year franchise.
>tell stories
They told the story of the games and didn’t go off into left field doing something else. It told Mario, as it is, and it’s new for a movie. what would you have preferred besides a vague ‘oh I don’t know, something different!’, they did that before and it bombed
>Don’t worry, the money wasn’t yours and they made it all back. Call the world idiots all you want, this movie works
Fanboy cope and not an argument.
>They built beloved characters over 30 years and none of them have been in a movie as themselves. You can play mine games with yourself if you want and say the movie has to stand alone, but you’ll be wrong in a world where it’s just the latest part of a beloved 30 year franchise.
Fanboy cope and not an argument.
>They told the story of the games and didn’t go off into left field doing something else. It told Mario, as it is, and it’s new for a movie. what would you have preferred besides a vague ‘oh I don’t know, something different!’, they did that before and it bombed.
Why not take creative liberty and actually develop the characters?
>why not take creative liberty
Because the project was overseen by the creators and the franchise has successfully been at their creative liberty for 30 years. Mario is so fricking exotic and different, the only reason you’d dare call it uncreative is because you’ve seen it before. Makes sense, been there done that, but there’s enough creativity in Mario it still works for people and they like to see it.
Paper Mario and the RPG series are a million times better than the mainline series because they aren't under oversight by Miyamoto. Go play some more NSMBW plastic shit, slob on Miyamoto's knob and keep worshipping the hack mandated sludge he puts out on a yearly basis.
>Paper Mario and the RPG series are a million times better than the mainline series
Well, look at that, a time traveler from 2005.
Any counter arguments?
The movie is a lot fresher than a NSMB game
You just read it.
Paper Mario hasn't been good since 2005. Meanwhile, even if you don't like NSMB, Mario's 3D platformers at least TRY.
>At least TRY
At what? Being bland, boring and inoffensive as possible?
Didn’t like Odyssey or Galaxy? Really?
Odyssey is boring and formulaic as frick with an inconsistent artstyle, and boring gameplay with a million moons and not a single incentive to get any of them.
Galaxy is a lot better, but even then it had to be snuck in behind Miyamoto's back.
Hm, poor taste
>No argument
Was watching Mario spin around a moon every time you walk three feet fun?
I like doing fun obstacle courses and turning into different funny bouncy cartoon guys while performing something of an Easter egg hunt yes
Easy as frick obstacle courses that don't even utilize half of the games controls that it tediously attempts to teach you at the beginning? Dark Side of the moon is the only moderately hard thing in the game and I couldn't even get there before being bored by the second world.
Yeah it was a fun little romp. Not difficult enough for the main game progression to hold you back from moving forward and seeing/doing new things, but you could get really good at it and do it even better
>Yeah it was a fun little romp.
I'm very sorry for your shit taste.
>Not difficult enough
Sums it up pretty well.
Easy games can be fun
An easy game that gives you no incentive to explore its world is boring.
It was fun to move around and the worlds were cool, it excited me to see them
>DUDE IT GAVE ME DOPAMINE FROM SEEING COOL PLACES!!
Manchild consoomer
Cool places are cool
can't argue with that
Yeah wheres my transgressive Mario movie
>"inoffensive"
This will NEVER be a real insult no matter how much hipster cucks want it to be. The urge to be subversive no matter what is a disease
Sheesh now who’s the fanboy. Look I’m sure I’ve been through the same Mario opinions as you but after this long I just take it or leave it based on if the product is good and this movie worked
Did you just unironically say "sheesh"? NTA, but come on, nobody talks like that. What's next, "golly"?
>golly
If you're Gadget Hackwrench, in which case I want to frick you.
Yeah it’s a little homestyle vocabulary
>This feels incredibly insulting to the entire idea of movies themselves. You're admitting that literally all you want is an eye candy movie to turn off your brain too.
That's a movie for toddlers, do you think Toy Story is any deeper?
So kids movies must be shit? Is bad writing inherent to kids movies?
What are your standards? When it was the last time a kids movie was deep in any possible way? Do you think Zootopia is deep? Or Moana?
He didn't actually say deep. Bad writing is not the opposite of deep.
>if your argument is that a video game like Mario has so little to explore in a 90 minute movie, why make it a movie?
My argument is that the Mario games have enough in them to explore in a 90 minute movie, and that it being a movie of what’s in the games is worth it. You’re stuck on some idea you want to find out what’s ‘behind the castle’ as if any of what Mario is, is finding out that bowser killed his dad and bowser used to be the king’s pet. You could do it, but it would be an irrelevant feature for a movie that’s supposed to feel like the series as it is.
>My argument is that the Mario games have enough in them to explore in a 90 minute movie, and that it being a movie of what’s in the games is worth it.
So the entire point of the movie is about references to the games and not taking what's in the games to tell an actual story?
Mario games aren’t much about story, they each use them as a loose premise for *wait for it* colorful characters doing funny sounding acrobatics in exotic worlds full of goofy creatures and fun music
So, we're back to my main point, which is:
If your argument is that a video game like
Mario yields such little to explore in the
confines of a 90 minute movie, then doesn't that totally negate it's purpose of existing as a movie in the first place? Why ever make a movie to begin with if that's the case? Money, obviously, we all know why, but why would one not be inclinded to be "cynical" of such a blatant cash grab that offers very little in terms of entertainment value like the Mario movie does?
The video games yield a ton to explore and they explored a ton of what’s in the video games in this movie. You can complain it didn’t have more drama or character conflict, but if you say the movie didn’t have dozens of crazy exotic locations, characters, scenarios, and content from and about the game, then you’re wrong. You’re talking like a video game movie has to do something different than the video game. The Mario movie yielded tons of shit, it yielded the content of the games. Putting the games in a movie format so people can watch it like a movie is a good idea and it doesn’t betray what a movie is.
>The video games yield a ton to explore and they explored a ton of what’s in the video games in this movie.
They literally only explored like 2% of it at best. Not only that but they could barely be asked to put almost any of the actual music from the games into the movie. The franchise has 30 years worth of music but they barely put any of it into the movie.
>You're acting like a video game movie had to do something different than putting the game into the movie
Strawman. I'm saying that the movie should build its world, characters and plot using the references, not just stringing together references and calling it a plot.
>The Mario movie yielded tons of shit, it yielded the content of the games.
And did what with it?
>Putting the games in a movie format so people can watch it like a movie is a good idea and it doesn’t betray what a movie is.
You're talking about a movie and not a game. A game shouldn't be like a movie and a movie shouldn't be like a game.
A video game movie can be like the video game. What did they do with all this mario content you ask? Aggregate it into an energetic movie with higher fidelity than any of the games, so you can watch 90 minutes of Mario fun if you want
Simply giving gamers what they remember playing in games is not how you craft a story.
>adapting the game isn’t telling a story
It is and the movie literally told a story
Adapting the game isn't telling a story. A story needs a story, not just things from it.
The story is that some plumbers are lost in an exotic cartoon world where they join in a battle between the princess to prey or these fun loving places from a turtle dragon.
Okay. What character development do any of the characters go through. Describe them and their payoff.
Mario and Luigi want to make something of themselves for the sake of their family and they become braver and more of a team to succeed at that
That's not character development. That's motivations. Describe what development they go through. Especially tell me what Luigi goes through.
They overcome their fears against monsters obstacles and lava because family is a higher priority and they go from losers to winners
Describe the process for how this happens. What character does Luigi have and how does he develop?
Only Mario develops from someone with unearned bravado into a real hero. Luigi doesn't. Lots of people have complained about this. If the sequel focuses somewhat on Luigi I won't see it as a problem, Luigi was barely in the movie and did even less.
Only Mario really does. He doubts himself at the beginning of the film a lot despite his tenacity and worries he is only hurting himself and Luigi. By the end of the film he sees the positive side of never giving up no matter what and his confidence is more genuine.
Mario is the only character with an arc, but since this is based on what was original an ancient game of a few pixels and barely any plot or characters just "guy saves princess from monster," that is okay.
If they do sequels, it would be nice to see them focus on Luigi, Peach, Bowser, etc. but this is okay for what it is (intro film for very simple franchise).
OH Donkey Kong gets a really shitty arc about wanting his dad's respect but again I didn't expect more. It's definitely not a great film. It's mediocre, with fun visuals, references, and sequences for a very shallow shiny franchise, it never pretended to be anything else.
>a stupid argument
It’s not an argument it’s an attitude and a feeling.
>ugh its not even complicated it’s story is simple it’s unambitious because it only shows the beloved characters doing iconic and crazy things in a AAA peppy CGI medium
So?
>mediocrity
You’re just a shit judge of quality. Looking for all this intellectualism or ‘fine’ artistry is fine, but you’re willfully blind to the details appeal and creativity of CG art, and the basic value of an exciting colorful circus adventure. What’s it supposed to be anyways? What complications or depth or whatever did you have in mind?
I'm not /misc/ (typical /misc/ anyway) at all and I totally agree with this. Super Mario Brothers is just a silly and fun concept. I'm really sick of everything feeling like it has to take concepts that are silly, fun, honestly stupid if you think about them at all and "subvert expectations" by making them "serious" and "realistic" with something deep to say.
The reason I'm sick of it is that it hardly ever works. It's still idiotic, but now instead of it just being something fun, it's up its own ass with how important it is. I'm not talking about adding diversity at all, either. Unlike /misc/, I just don't see that as something that is in and of itself political at all, sorry. Not unless it makes it that way.
I do consider the Super Mario Brothers movie mediocre and mid though. It had barely any story. It should have had more Luigi screentime and more focus on the brother's relationship. But I was so glad it didn't try to throw put the whole franchise and make it unrecognizable to be this big, serious, egdy, gloomy political allegory or some shit. That's always cringe.
the movie's alright just that
I'm really hoping the sequel turns out to be the Mario movie I wanted, and this is just the test run to show its possible to make a movie with Mario, however "meh".
Alright what do you want in a mario movie
How I would have wanted a Mario movie would have been to have it spread across all the different worlds that you would usually get in the games as Mario tries to get to the Bowsers castle, running into challenges and meeting new characters on his way. You could have even still had the supporting characters of Peach and Toad there, à la Super Mario Bros 2.
It would have made it feel like a road trip movie and more exciting than just having a short montage of travelling like in the actual movie.
WAHOO
The movies trying to live up to story conventions but doesn't let itself breathe enough to actually get there. It's even more exacerbated when you realize some of the games do actually have interesting stories but for a feature length film, they seemingly decide to skim out on it.
Barring the Paper Mario series what fkn mainline game has deep plot
The AlphaDream games. Bowser's Inside Story gave him a boost in popularity due to the characterization he got in it.
That's not mainline, it's part of the RPG games, and making a movie out of it without prior context would be weird af to general audiences
There's also the Rosalina books in Mario Galaxy as well.
Well never say never, the Luma and them namedropping Galaxy is a huge sign it'll be the next movie. And the fact that Galaxy is one of the most memorable marios helps too
Is Yoshi is the only one they explicitly teased?
Nothing about this movie is solid. It's like a dude with Parkinson's trying to keep water in a glass.
I just wish they did less honestly
The DK plot should have been part of a second movie
Also I'm surprised Nintendo allowed them to include Mario's parents and larger family it's been a mystery for the longest time
I agree. Turn your brain off and consume product. I'll be going to McDonalds for lunch.
>only enjoyable if you're drunk enough to vomit later like i was
The people defending the Mario movie for being “simple” and “full of references” are the same crowd who will cry about “muh brainless MCU capeshit”
Biggest example of “My brand good, other brand evil” I’ve seen on this board
Also the same types who will criticize movies like Minions, Sing, Smurfs, Angry Birds,
Secret life of pets, Hotel transylvania for being “shallow”
lol
Love early marvel movies, plenty of the middle ones too
Got fatigue, not offended by the series though
Never hated illumination like a lot of you idiots
Like the Mario movie
Simple
I think that easter eggs shouldn’t carry your movie.
Can't people just have the honesty so say they like it because they like Mario? If it was John Smith in Fairy Tale World, people wouldn't care.
Sure i don’t mind
I just don’t like when its put on a pedestal for pretentious reasons
Yeah yeah we get it, Mario gets your pants moist, no need to make more threads repeating the same fricking post you autist.
the movie did well because mario is more well known today than mickey mouse and video game in general being a bigger industry than any other entertainment industry. it meh movie rinding off the power of a franchise. same shit happened before. every there is a popular segment of the entertainment industry that is more popular than holywood with a new generation, they start adapting it until someone gets rights for the biggest franchise of said segment and cash on it. now the market is gonna get flooded meh vidya adaptions, since it is impossible to compete with marvel in the super heroe genre and even marvel is having issues with the fatigue from the masses
How can anyone like this movie? I mean, seriously.
It was the blandest, most narratively stale fricking thing ever. The only good thing i can say about it is that, much like every other schizophrenic Illumination movie, i was never truly bored watching it. But if the movie only stays with you for as long as it lasts, then it's not worthy of praise.
It's impossible for me to comprehend liking this, that's like eating tasteless grey slop and saying you liked it because it kept you busy in the time it took to eat it.
>I was never bored watching it
That’s success. The movie was literally entertaining for its run time, isn’t that something? Yet you feel the need to act offended by the thing because it’s not your new companion or something? I respect movies that stick with you and have a lot of meaning, but you’re just taking it too far to literally say you were entertained for a movie’s runtime but it’s ‘worthless’ because it doesn’t warrant a lifetime of discussion. So what?
>That’s success.
That's mediocrity
If there's no investment in the audience's part and the movie doesn't make me care about anything that is happening on an emotional level, it failed as a story.
If the movie is fun while you watch it it’s a fun movie
I guarantee that if the movie focused more on the story and character moments you motherfrickers would be b***hing that there's barley any game elements.
>It's okay for a movie to be a 90 minute nothing burger
This is how apathetic people are that they're willing to accept shit like this. It's genuinely sad that this is what media discourse has devolved to.
>nothing burger!!!!
Of course you don’t see anything other than story as valuable in a film. The movie had a story, though simple, and it was filled with content and character and graphics and fun and everything else. Get a grip
>The movie had a story, though simple, and it was filled with content and character and graphics and fun and everything else.
If by story you mean a series of horribly under developed plot points, characters and a setting, then yes.
>now he’s confused by the Mario movie story
I thought it was too simple, what the hell? And how dare this story serve as a connecting tissue between cartoon action scenes!
You sound like an unfun, pretentious frickstick to go to movies with.
> "Hey Anon, we're thinking of seeing a movie. Want to join?"
"This is how apathetic people are that they're willing to accept shit like this. It's genuinely sad that this is what media discourse has devolved to"
>"Yeah never mind you can stay home and post on your weird little goblin website."
I don't consider watching a 200 million dollar budget film made for manchildren and morons to be fun.
Do you consider b***hing about it on Cinemaphile to be fun?
Making morons like you mad I consider fun, yes.
Why like me?
The movie was fun. Thats it. Thats all it was, and that's all I wanted it to be. It's not a 10/10, it doesn't redefine animation or have any deeper meaning behind it. It was me, my brothers, and a few friends who grew up on the Mario games going in, laughing, pointing out Easter Eggs, eating popcorn and drinking soda, then getting a quick bite to eat laughing about the movie, and having a fun evening. That's all I want the sequels to be too: A fun hour and a half with friends and family that's easy to rewatch with my Nieces and Nephews during family get-togethers that's just as fun as the games are.
This is such a pathetic way of thinking and such a trite argument. Going to see a movie is fun. The actual movie itself doesn't have to be "fun".
When I was in Japan, a vastly superior country to ours, everyone was polite, and most importantly, quite. Afterwards we headed to the lounge and there we allowed ourselves to express our opinions of the film we had just watched. And still we didn't "holla" and "jive" about it. I bet you watch capeshit and unironically believe you're having a good time because the cattle around you are whooping like mindless toddlers.
>scene where wade crashes the retirement party and professes his love for ember
>father is more upset that it was ember that broke the pipe than the fact that she is dating outside of race
They went for the racism angle, but didn't want to commit too hard to it.
???
Wrong tab.
The Mario movie is exactly what I wanted. People who wanted to be an avante-garde experimental film touching on modern political issues are people who don't buy shit anyway.
The movie was ASS.
Mario was a pussy & Peach was a cold fish.
>Luigi is a secondary damsel in distress
>in a movie where he's one of the TITLE characters
Frick Illumination for that. And don't even try to bring up Super Princess Peach or Luigi's Mansion as counterarguments...those are just shitty spinoffs.
Because Mario needed a motivation to do anything he did. If Peach is kidnapped, he really doesn't have a reason to go help her because he doesn't know her and would assume the Mushroom Kingdom has its own army to mount rescue operations. If it's Luigi, he's personally invested.
>Because Mario needed a motivation to do anything he did.
They gave the Marios an extended family, remember? Why not use one of them as motivation and have the eponymous heroes work together, as it should be?
Can we stop talking about this "movie" please.
It's an albatross that I try to actively avoid like a tumor.
Anon this is an albatross
I think you need to get your eyes checked
All of Mario & Luigi's dialog is saccharine & forced.
>Mario's a fussy baby with daddy issues.
Yippy...
Why does Cinemaphile act like this movie is the death of cinema when movies like spiderverse and oppenheimer are released the same year?
It's ok to have a fun "turn your brain off" movie as long as there are also other movies that focus on story and whatnot.
homie, this is Pixar. If this came from Illumination or Dreamworks, then yeah it's just a fun time.
No, this is illumination. Do you still think you’re in the elemental thread?