My problem with Ebert is how often his "reasoning" seems to consist of "I'm right and you're dumb." An occasional backpedal is not a bad thing if you can recognize you were wrong/ill-informed about something. Instead he takes the intellectually lazy route of declaring a position based on minimal information and impugning the character or authority of anyone who dares to disagree. Even recusing himself from the video games debate was less "I shouldn't have said anything because I don't know enough about the subject" and more "I shouldn't have said anything because you're all a bunch of mad Philistines who can neither be controlled nor reasoned with."

Wikipedia, 'splain.

It was shot digital with an open shutter. It has the same effect as those "motion smoothing" televisions of making things look and feel like they were shot on a video camera (associated with being more "real" since people record their real lives with video) rather than film.

I'm with maul2. Beauty and the Beast was not an animated film aimed at adults. If it were, it wouldn't be rated G. It just isn't aimed at children to the exclusion of adults -- which I guess is why the distinction of "family" entertainment exists, vs. "kids" entertainment.

I think people laugh at hyperviolence because it's such a system shock. I'm sure people laughed and went "Ohhhhh!" during EXPENDABLES. It's not that it's funny, per se, more of a "I can't believe that just fucking HAPPENED" incredulous laughter. It's not that it's animation, therefore it's funny. It's funny because it's insane to see it in animation.

...I don't know if I'm making sense with that distinction. I mean to say that it's not that people see a cartoon and are therefore primed to assume that they're watching something funny. It's that when people see a cartoon, they are not primed to expect graphic violence, and the shock of seeing it makes them laugh (laughter is just a response to something unexpected -- a joke is only really funny when you don't see it coming).

Afro Samurai creates much the same reaction, as did the anime sequence in KILL BILL vol.1 (actually most of that movie caused those reactions in the audience).

I don't agree that Pixar's movies have fundamentally selfish protagonists all the way through (nor necessarily that HOME ALONE or HOOK do, either. I can give you PROBLEM CHILD). TOY STORY, UP, and CARS are distinctly about the protagonists having to learn not to be such pricks, and INCREDIBLES has some of that in Mr. Incredible's storyline but there's also the clear superhero save-the-world aspect. FINDING NEMO also has a bit of Marlin not being so overprotective (selfishness in its way), but he does truly love his son and risks everything to rescue him. TOY STORY 2 is about Woody's friends rescuing him; TOY STORY 3 is about Woody rescuing his friends; MONSTERS, INC. is about rescuing Boo; WALL-E is about Wall-E seeking a connection with Eve (but unselfishly -- he doesn't want anything from her, aside from the company, he just wants to give), and then Eve saving Wall-E, and also about the ship's captain saving humanity from itself despite it meaning giving up his comfort and authority. RATATOUILLE I don't remember because I saw it once and it left no impression but I think the rat and the dude were helping each other right?

I do think, however, that perhaps you've shone a light on a deeper explanation for why Pixar is "Pixar!" and Dreamworks is "oh, Dreamworks..." Pixar DOES tell stories about self-sacrifice and whatnot, and the stories work because we feel like they matter, like they're about something. Whereas until recently, Dreamworks made movies that were about the gags and pop culture references, but the characters were fundamentally selfish and that was the only thing driving them. Even when the arc is about learning not to be selfish -- SHREK, for example -- he hasn't really learned that at the end, has he? He's really only figured out that it benefits him to open up his heart to Donkey and Fiona. I didn't bother with SHARK TALE or MADAGASCAR but I'm guessing it's a lot of the same, and I don't even remember what the hell SHREKS 2 and 3 were putatively about.

But I loved KUNG FU PANDA, and HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON really made a lot of people at least cock their heads to the side and go "wait, Dreamworks? Hm, they might be getting this now." And in both cases -- although initially selfishly motivated -- the protagonists, as well as many of the supporting characters, ultimately have to put themselves aside and fight for something bigger.

THIS IS SO DEEP YOU GUYS

Now finally having a chance to listen to this and hear the bits I wasn't there for, the $10 word Brian may have been reaching for when discussing the more modern acting style could be "verisimulitude." "Simulacrum" would be a good $10 word for a pod person, though.

I actually kind of like the (initial) blase attitude toward the pod people, similar to the attitude the characters have in THE THING when discussing that it's a shapeshifter.

"There's a clone of you dead on the table."
"Yeeup."
"Hm. That's fucked up."
"Yeeup. Want some coffee?"

I dunno. For some reason I like it better than the modern tendency to either become immediately hysterical or just start shotgunning irrational denials in all directions. I feel like if something that crazy happened, but you weren't in immediate apparent danger, you'd almost be too freaked out to be freaked out.

Once the shit really starts going down and immediate risk starts to become apparent, then I see panic setting in. But as long as it's just lying there, after the initial shock I can imagine it being kinda like, "huh."

+1 on liking BATMAN FOREVER, for basically the same reasons Branco said. Pre-Nolanverse I actually think it's my favorite, RETURNS being second.

BATMAN & ROBIN is pretty indefensible though. Although you compare it to AIRBENDER and I think "boy, we didn't know how good we had it with 'bad' back then."

I deleted said bot post. Just so no one thinks maul2 is being a dick to Shifty.

ZARBAN HAS A GIIIIIIIIRLFRIENNNNNNNND

Which is a bit like responding to the Secret History of Star Wars with "Oh, no, you see that's explained in the Young Jedi Knights series, that when they referred to this, they were actually referring to that."

The point of the video is that they were seen as different gods for centuries, per archaeological and anthropological evidence, until the concept of monotheism was invented, at which point they were retconned into a single god with the explanation you've just given.

You missed the point of the video completely. High five.

Although you're right that this isn't "new" to those religions -- it predates them and forms their foundation.

You could also look at it as, through all the Leno-Conan nonsense, no one ever considered that just watching Letterman was a viable alternative.

I think he and Leno are locked in an epic struggle to see who can be less funny each night. Whoever wins we lose.

I have the same birthday as Nimoy. Also shared with Richard Dawkins, and Joseph Campbell. Whatup.

Although to be fair, I wonder how many laughtrack-based sitcoms that you or I consider actually funny would feel equally stilted and awkward without the laughtrack. I bet most of them.

I have only seen a handful of episodes but I couldn't say from which season(s) they came. They were just on -- though it was syndication, not new episodes -- so I thought I'd give it a shot. And...blech. I should probably try watching a few more but I don't think I could respect myself in the morning.

I didn't want to clutter up Zarban's commentary section with a response, so it's here:

Accusations of "ignorance" come from a very provincial perspective of a specific interpretation of the theology. I may not know (or agree) with his interpretation of the Bible, but he seems to be under the impression that his is the only-possible-everyone-agrees-and-certainly-correct-one -- which is, of course, what everyone he disagrees with thinks about their own. I also find it amusing that he makes such accusations of ignorance while himself demonstrating so little understanding of the history of the development of the Bible and especially of early Judaism.

I do personally tend to try not to bring up religion in commentaries unless the movie is religiously themed, in which case I think we should be free to discuss the film's underlying mythology like we do with any other.