emAK47 t1_jedelc9 wrote
Reply to comment by _Meece_ in Why do people say the superhero genre is "dead"? by CboyC95
You're just measuring budget
_Meece_ t1_jedeyh8 wrote
No I am not? Comedies are openly the most cash grabbiest movies around.
They're cheap movies, made quick for an easy buck. Comedy producers are all upset these days because their meal ticket died, no one goes to see comedy in the cinema anymore.
I'm just more refuting your claim of Superhero movies being the lowest form of cinema. That easily, easily, goes to comedy.
I wouldn't even put Supehero movies far above it. But no chance they beat comedy for this title.
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedfbuq wrote
I’m not sure you know what “lowest form of cinema” means.
_Meece_ t1_jedg4pn wrote
Do you? You'd think the form of cinema, that puts no effort in and largely relies on the improvisational skills of its actors to be the lowest form.
But no it's the CGI fests lol
emAK47 t1_jedhdbc wrote
To me it's not really the CGI, rather than the movies themselves being a part of a greater design that has been approved by an investors board to be as risk free as possible. The single directors have almost no way to make an interesting movie. I agree with you on comedies being the quickest cashgrab in terms of investment, but I feel like the Disney approach is a lot filthier.
Ok_Magazine_1569 t1_jedjglo wrote
That’s what I’m saying, man — if you think that’s what all comedies are, then you haven’t seen very many, not to mention good ones. And there’s nothing wrong with improvisational skills. To me, that’s actually more impressive in a way than copious amounts of CGI.
But, beyond that — you still don’t seem to understand what “lowest form of cinema” is. It means dumb, awful, worthless trash.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments