Comments by "TheNabOwnzz" (@TheNabOwnzz) on "WatchMojo.com"
channel.
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Ricky B Now you're just living in denial…. this is starting to get ridiculous. I constantly throw irrefutable points in your face, and your inability to cope with them is becoming quite hilarious. I've lectured you multiple times why your point about theme parks is irrelevant. There's really no question about that. It's scientific, per definition factual, even. What you're constantly referring to is 'popularity', which is not relevant. And we're not talking about 'what makes the world tick', we're talking about what the best movies are. With your idiotic rhetoric only mainstream movies can be good, and mainstream is only achieved through popularity. Take Harakiri, Come & See, or the Human Condition trilogy. There's little doubt they are among the best in the world, but they're not very famous. They're not very 'popular'. Something, again, becomes mainstream by being popular, not by being so great. This is really common basic deduction, boyo. You're pissing in the wind.
4
-
Moh Asani It is indeed top tier, there is not a weak performance in the bunch. Why is it not? And i have seen plenty of movies with good acting. I explicitly said that i did not count Gimli among those with wide arcs. Even so, there's still around 10 characters who do have them. Gimli might indeed be joking around often times, but they are never cringy, especially not as cringy as marvel. Faramir and Eowyn? Well let us see... Faramir, the younger brother perpetually living in the shadow of the first, never knowing of love by his father. He is good hearted by nature, but corrupted because of his lovelessness in enslaving Frodo & Sam by the seduction of the ring. Nevertheless his good nature eventually overcomes his outer corruption when seeing Frodo almost willingly give up the ring to a Nazgul, and he self sacrifices his honour and his little acclaim he had left of his father by this selfless act. Drained of all that could give him the will to live, he sacrifices himself and almost dies. Eowyn, grown up in war torn lands with parents brutally murdered before her eyes, grows up with a perpetual sense of sadness and remorse. She becomes obsessed with the gaining of valor, like the men, and disdains such womanly activities such as caring for the old and sick during sieges. She thus disguises herself and fights among them, only to be wounded by the witch king and confronted by the futility of her actions, echoing Aragorn's earlier words that there 'will come a time when there will be valor without renown'. This valor she gives up when she meets Faramir, and Faramir finds the sole reason to live once again. So you see, both arcs effortlessly compliment each other, and are indubitably the result of a thorough amount of thought.
Aragorn and Frodo average? Let us see... Aragorn, heir to Isildur and thus heir to the throne of Gondor grows up in fear of what happened to Isildur. He grows up in fear of responsibility, essentially, and thus in the beginning we see him as a self proclaimed exile, a ranger of the north. He fears and shirks his responsibilities due to the tragedies of his ancestor. Throughout the trilogy, he becomes more and more immersed in the role he was born to be, to wit, becoming the king of Gondor. Aragorn is also, obviously, good natured, and by witnessing Sauron's increased power and the consequences of his wrath upon all of Middle Earth, he slowly becomes compelled to act, and slowly embraces his responsibility, and rids himself of his past fear. Frodo? The jovial and ignorant Hobbit of the shire... knowing nothing of the world outside and of good and evil before the start. Circumstances force him into action. He becomes the reluctant bearer of destiny without having asked for such a thing, and gradually he realizes that only he can possibly bring the ring into mordor, after witnessing the animosity of the council of Elrond. He turns from simple, ignorant and kind-hearted into an icon of despair and yet hope, in a duplicitious amalgamation of qualities. Having done his task he returns to the Shire, but his mental and physical wounds prove to be too much for him to bear. As he poignantly states; 'How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on when in your heart you begin to understand there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend... some hurts that go too deep... that have taken hold.' indeed Frodo could not return to the carefree life of the Shire after the evil and misery he has witnessed, and he has therefore sacrificed himself for the greater good, this meek Hobbit of the shire. This is just a brief summary about these obviously in-depth characters, but you get the point that they cannot be shallow.
What's bad about the moments when they apparently died? It heightens the risk factor in the movie. The world is at stake. Everybody can die. Gandalf actually did die, by the way. He was just resurrected. Now you're suddenly turning the rushing and dragging around, lmao. You said the opposite before this. Sure you know what you're talking about? We have established the obvious substantial quality of LOTR, so saying it is only technically great makes no sense. And wow, Lawrence of Arabia & Barry Lyndon look even better so LOTR cannot be great, right? First off i mean you're picking the best of the best, and LOTR is still substantially better than both of those, even if they have the visual edge. 2001, however, is definitely not visually better. HAL pushing that friend of Dave away looks silly as shit, and the space scenes are kinda wooden in movement. Also, you whined about LOTR's characters, but then you name 2001 as a masterpiece? Oh, the irony...
4
-
@bradenmerriman5206 I just explained to you how psychologically the image of a cartoon is in perfect acquiescence with the juvenile nature of the childish mind, boyo. The subject isn't as relevant as the image when we are considering psychological age requirements. I don't mind escapism, but anime is childish escapism. It carries no deeper meaning other than to be transported to another world without allegory and with an entirely diverging and distinct image. LOTR does not fit this bill, as it is merely in subject set in a fantasy world, heavily influenced by the real one, but that is only subject, the image is human, and not cartoonish, and that is the salient point here. And anime superior in terms of style? What? And in terms of WRITING? This coming from the guy who said he hates books? Well... let us be honest, boyo, you're just being ridiculous here by acting like you can be a connoisseur of writing quality when you in all actuality despise writing and wish to have nothing to do with it. Don't make me laugh. As for style, this is a very vague and abstract argument. What does it mean? Likely it is just your blatant ostensible insecurity that is showing, and you do not require the innate capabilities of reasoning soundly anymore. And who says this is a "casual" conversation? What do i care about your subjective terms about Whatever discussion something is? I am merely quite a bit more intelligent than you, which also my loquacious eloquence allows me to proclaim, whereas yours is full of utter depravity & half educated coxcomb, however sincerely.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4