#shit i hate

[mystery-rick-smile-skull-15]

My anon rant

It's just a rant, you don't have to agree, but I want to talk about...

Anonymous!!!

Why does tumblr have the anon option?!

I mean I know a good reason for it, but I found a bad reason!! Anon is supposed to be use for asking stupid questions, so that they won't have the notification of being embarrassed, but yet it's used for negative questions/comments/etc. If you want to talk shit, then pm me..then we'll talk!!! Besides, unless you have something nice to say, then keep it to yourself!! Other than that, don't fuck with me. If you don't like it, then that fine with me, I'm blocking your ass. Theres a reason why I don't have anon on. If it's something nice, then say it!! If it's anything that's not nice, keep it to yourself!! That's all I ask from you.

Anyway guys, that was my rant. You don't have to agree, if you don't want to agree. If you strongly agree, repub if you like. Apart from that, thank for reading this. Until then, goodbye.

[my-insanity-is-an-artform]

i hate moving. i hate the end of a long day when you are trying to complete a rental agreement and miscalculate the bond amount from two weeks worth to a month’s worth and just send it off to the landlord. i hate doing six different things at once when all i want to do is eat my fucking dinner.

i also hate Trump cause if im naming shit i hate, might as well round out the whole list

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Shit I Hate #4: Attitudes Towards Reboots, Remakes, and Adapting Previously Adapted Books

Lately I’ve been seeing people responding to the news that a new adaptation (keep this wording in mind, it’s important) of Stephen King’s Pet Semetary is being made with cries of “Oh my god! Hollywood is out of ideas! Stop remaking classics!” And… well, it’s honestly the breaking point for me. It’s time I do a rant on this subject, this subject being how much I absolutely LOATHE the knee-jerk reaction people have towards ‘remakes’ and ‘reboots,’ as well as this idiotic idea that any time a new version of an adaptation is made, it’s somehow a ‘remake.’

Let’s look at that last point first, because it relates directly to my breaking point I mentioned: a new adaptation of a work previously adapted is not necessarily a remake. Pet Semetary was a book first. Then it got made into a movie. A new adaptation is not going to be remaking the original movie, it is going to be adapting the book. It’s not a hard concept to understand. You’d think after the smashing success of Stephen King’s It in the wonderful year that is 2017 people would realize taking another shot at adapting something isn’t always a bad idea (the miniseries version was a disrespectful trainwreck only notable for having one of Tim Curry’s best performances), but hey, guess the critical acclaim, box office success, and love from audiences means nothing. Here’s the thing: when it comes to adapting something like a book to screen, different artists are going to have different visions for what said book should look like on screen. Look at all the different reinterpretations of Batman we’ve had on film over the years: West’s goofy hero, Keaton’s hardboiled badass, Bale’s rasping do-gooder, and Affleck’s tragic demon. We get all these different facets of Batman put on display due to different artists looking at him in a different way. And I don’t think it should be any different when it comes to adapting books; if an artist has a new angle of looking at something, we shouldn’t just jump right in and start screaming of how they lack ideas. That sort of criticism is for when the film actually comes out. Preemptively damning a film for having the gall to adapt a book that may have already had a movie is fucking stupid as all hell.

This becomes even worse when the original ain’t all that great. Pet Semetary, while not an awful movie by any means, is basically a step or two above average and not one of the more memorable King adaptations; the best bit of it is the Ramones song that plays over the credits, and this film had the audacity to cut out the wendigo scene. So really, even if it was okay, I’d love to see a new version that incorporates elements that were left  out, or just look at the film from an artistic angle the first adaptation didn’t. Again, look at It: it managed to do what the miniseries couldn’t and remain close to the book while having a wildly different tone and look. It’s not a carbon copy, and in fact it’s superior in every way. Now, this doesn’t always work out, obviously; you’re not gonna find many people arguing that Stephen King’s Shining miniseries is better than Kubrick’s movie, but EVEN in that case, the former still has some level of artistic merit. Regardless of your feelings towards it, it did still try and look at the source material in a different way than Kubrick did (namely, by trying to actually follow the source material more closely).

Now, onto the hatred against reboots and remakes… this, I can more see where it’s coming from. As of late, there have been A LOT of soulless reimaginings of movies crapped out into theaters. There’s the shameless retread of Poltergeist, there’s the rebooted Ghostbusters… it destroys a lot of faith. But here’s the thing: rebooting and remaking is not an inherently flawed or awful concept. Two of the greatest horror films ever made – The Fly and The Thing – are, in fact, remakes of old horror films. And then there are all the times Dracula has been reimagined, including the Hammer films with Lee’s portrayal and Francis Ford Coppola’s take on the Bram Stoker novel (you’ll find that this part of y rant will tie back into the first part quite a bit; it’s unavoidable to talk about how reboots are not inherently bad without mentioning the numerous times literary characters have been redone). Or take a look at the fantastic Hannibal Lecter thriller Red Dragon – it isn’t the first time that story was adapted, first being done by Michael Mann as Manhunt and featuring Brian Cox as the first onscreen portrayal of Lecter. And then the Hannibal stories were adapted yet again for the TV series, taking the characters in ever different directions than the movie did! Yes, I’m not going to argue that there are plenty of boring, awful reboots or remakes – Psycho as done by Gus Van Sant exists, and that film is basically the logical extreme of a bad reboot, being a shot-for-shot remake with no imagination or intelligence applied anywhere. But even less-well received ones like the remakes of Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street have some level of artistic merit to them. I’d never say they’re as good as the original films, mind you, but I don’t necessarily think they’re wholly devoid of value.

Bottom line: things should be judged on the quality of the actual product, not judged via knee-jerk reaction. I’m not going to defend something wholly soulless and devoid of any sort of creativity when it comes to remakes, but I’m also not going to ignore if they try to do something new. And I’m CERTAINLY not going to have a fit over literary adaptations being made, even if there has already been one.

[higherfruits]

Shit I hate

(Live stream edition)

1. If the person livestreaming is apart of a group and fans are asking for other memebers when they're clearly not there ..... STOP DOING THAT SHIT

2.rude ass people who say dumb shit in the comments

3 . People who repeat their comments a million times just to get noticed

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Shit I Hate #3: “BLAZING SADDLES COULDN’T BE MADE TODAY!”

This one’s going nder the cut, since it does contain a lot of uses of the N-word since, you know, I’m talking about a movie that uses it a lot.

I don’t see this too much anymore, mostly because I tend to just unfollow the people who say shit like this, but I have truly come to despise when people say things like “A movie like Blazing Saddles could never be made in this day and age!” Now, at face value, it almost seems smart; the world these days seems a bit too sensitive and overly politically correct, and this is a movie with copious use of the word “nigger.” How could a film like this be released in this day and age?!

Easily. Ever heard of Django Unchained? The Hateful Eight? Hell, a few years ago Robert Downey Jr. was nominated for an Oscar by playing an actor who was in blackface. The entire argument that Blazing Saddles could not be made today… is just absolute horseshit.

here’s the question that you really have to ask in this situation: WHY are people saying this? And the only answer I can come up with… is that the word “nigger” is used a lot. But here’s the thing; that word is not being used by the good guys, it’s not being used to make fun of black people, it’s not meant to smash political correctness by existing. The word is used to mock the people who use it. The people saying it are the butt of the jokes. They’re portrayed as stupid, racist, and buffoonish, and they are the ones being made fun of. In this day and age, do you really think people would be getting mad at a film where racists get the piss taken out of them? What the people who say that are basically doing is boiling Blazing Saddles, one of the funniest comedies ever made for how it mocks racists among other things, to a single word. They are acting as if the entirety of Mel Brooks’ film, a film that has tons of great satire, mocking of bigotry, and the greatest fart joke ever seen in a movie… is just the word “nigger” with no context. It seriously just seems like these people want an excuse to say nigger over and over.

And again, the argument that it couldn’t be made today is absolutely piss-poor. Quentin Tarantino has met great praise and success from his movies, which also use the word “nigger” with great frequency. South Park has had plenty of irreverent and offensive material and is still going on. Tropic Thunder had Robert Downey Jr. play an actor who dyed his skin black to play a black man in the movie within a movie. All of these things do the exact sort of thing people say Blazing Saddles couldn’t be made for and meet critical and commercial success. How? Well, the thing the people don’t understand is intent. In movies like Django Unchained or The Hateful Eight, the word “nigger” is used to accentuate how awful, disgusting, and backward the people using it are. The people saying it in those films tend to be slave owners or Confederate soldiers or just racist southerners. In South Park, they use racial humor and the like as a means of mocking the ideas. Remember the “Nigger guy” episode, where Randy says “nigger” on TV and then after suffering mockery tries to get the phrase “nigger guy” banned so he stops being remembered as “The nigger guy?” Randy is not the guy you’re supposed to be rooting for here. He is the guy you are supposed to be LAUGHING AT. He is an idiot, a bumbling nincompoop, and the cutaway shots to shocked crowds of black people is meant to highlight how absolutely stupid and ludicrous the proceedings are. And with Tropic Thunder, Kirk Lazarus just completely weirds out all his costars with his insane method acting. The reactions of the people around him show that even in-universe, what he’s doing is kinda weird. He even gets called out at a few points by his own black co-star. Again, this all boils down to intent, which is what the people saying “Blazing Saddles couldn’t be made today!” miss.

Mel Brooks did not make the movie so he could say “nigger” a lot. Mel Brooks made the movie to make fun of the kind of people who say “nigger” a lot. Blazing Saddles is not funny because it’s un-PC, Blazing Saddles is funny because it uses the political incorrectness as a tool to mock the kind of people who seem to think that not being allowed to spout racial slurs with reckless abandon means the world is filled with weak-willed pussies.

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Shit I Hate #1: Killing Villains

I love movies. I love superhero movies in particular. These statements should be no surprise to anyone. But like everything I love, these things have a lot of elements that just grind my gears, so I’m making an infrequent series for me to detail my issues in depth. And what better issue to start with than one of my biggest pet peeves with the superhero genre: killing the villain.

Now, comic books have always had wonderful rogues galleries full of insane and creative foes for the heroes to fight; sure, Spider-Man is interesting on his own, but he’s even better when you set him up against someone like Green Goblin, Mysterio, Venom, or Kraven the Hunter. Heroes are only as cool as the villains they fight, basically. And comic book movies have always done a great job of bringing villains to the screen, be they obscure or beloved… the problem is, by film’s end, these villains are typically dead.

Now, this pisses me off for a great many reasons, the chief among them that killing off the rogues gallery tends to spit in the face of the comics; sure, people like Norman Osborn have died before, so him dying is perfectly fine, but when you kill characters like Doctor Octopus, Ronan the Accuser, and the fucking Joker of all people, there’s a big problem. This almost always leads to cases where villains who could have been interesting recurring foes get totally shafted as a best-case scenario (which is the case with characters like Ronan, Joker, Penguin in Batman Returns, Ultron, and so on), or worst case a villain who was boring or poorly developed is not allowed to improve since they are now dad, with Malekith being the worst offender in this regard.

Now, to show you how widespread this issue is, I’m going back to the big kickstarter of this trend, Tim Burton’s Batman, and showing all the major superhero films that did this between then and today. Obviously I’m only going to focus on films that kill a major rogue of one of the main hero.

Batman: Jack Nicholson’s Joker is killed off

Dick Tracy: Almost every antagonistic force in the film is dead by the end.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Shredder dies at the end. I believe this keeps in line with the original comics, but at this point in the franchise Shredder was an established archenemy; it’s a very weird case.

Batman Returns: Penguin and Catwoman are both dead at film’s end, though Catwoman is ambiguous… though she may as well have been dead for all the later appearances she made.

Mask of the Phantasm: One of the few animated films that sort of fall into this, Joker’s fate is rather ambiguous. While he still shows up in the series, this movie almost seems like it’s in its own canon. Again, very weird case.

Batman Forever: Two-Face falls to his death, though Riddler lives; he’s totally insane at this point but it’s still something.

Batman & Robin: As more evidence that this isn’t a terrible movie, none of the major villains die; Ivy and Freeze are both alive and locked up by film’s end, as Batman would do in the comics. Hell, Clooney’s Batman is the only Batman that has not in any way been responsible for the death of one of his foes in some way.

Return of the Joker: Batman’s biggest foe comes back only to be completely erased forever. He dies twice over the course of this film.

X-Men: Magneto is one of the biggest names to avoid this, as he has consistently survived every movie he’s in. Toad and Sabretooth are not quite so lucky here.

Spider-Man: Green Goblin dies, though at least this is in line with the comics and he does impact the whole trilogy. Still counts though, as he was a major antagonist for a long while before his first ‘death.’

Daredevil: This one actually has both Kingpin and Bullseye live; in fact, it is one of the heroes, Elektra, who dies.

X2: X-Men United: Stryker does die in this, as does Lady Deathstrike.

Hellboy: Rasputin dies.

The Punisher: I really shouldn’t have to even list this, because with a guy like Punisher, no villain is coming out alive. This goes for War Zone later on down the line.

Spider-Man 2: Doc Ock is dead by film’s end. At least he didn’t posses Peter’s body.

Batman Begins: While Scarecrow is a notable aversion as he cameos in the following two films, the one DC villain best known for being immortal, Ra’s al-Ghul, dies at the end.

Superman Returns: Proving yet again that this film, while flawed, has the heart and spirit of

Superman right, Lex does not die in this film.

Fantastic Four: Doctor Doom doesn’t die, surprisingly.

X-Men: The Last Stand: Phoenix gets snikt’d by the end. Magneto, however, gets away.

Spider-Man 3: 2 out of 3 villains die, with only Sandman surviving; Venom and Harry Osborn are both dead at film’s end.

Ghost Rider: Blackheart dies, and I’m pretty sure a powerful demon like that doesn’t just die in the comics.

The Dark Knight: In a depressing twist, Joker lives, but Heath Ledger did not. Two-Face plays this straight yet again, dying with very little time to shine.

Iron Man: Interestingly, Iron Monger was originally going to be hinted to have lived. Perhaps he did, but right now everything points to dead.

The Incredible Hulk: Depressingly, every villain lives, but due to issues with distribution rights for Hulk, none of their plotlines have been followed up, meaning Abomination and Leader are in cinematic limbo.

The Spirit: The Octopus dies, which is the least of this film’s problems.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: Deadpool dies, which is bad enough.

Iron Man 2: Whiplash is dead, but Justin Hammer is in jail. Yay. The lame villain lives.

Captain America: The First Avenger: Red Skull is maybe dead… though it’s not only ambiguous, but highly probable he’s still out there. For now, he’s presumed dead.

Thor: Loki is another notable aversion; he still hasn’t died after appearing in three major films.

X-Men: First Class: Not only does Sebastian Shaw die, but every single villain dies offscreen between this film and the next, which includes Emma Frost and Azazel.

The Amazing Spider-Man: The only thing this movie does right is letting the villain live.

The Avengers: Loki lives, as stated above.

The Dark Knight Rises: Bane and Talia are both dead by the end of the movie.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance: Blackout dies.

Iron Man 3: The Fake Mandarin dies.

Man of Steel: As is well known by now, Superman snaps Zod’s neck, and Zod’s pals don’t fare any better.

Thor: The Dark World: Malekith dies, wasting any potential he may have had.

The Wolverine: Viper and the Silver Samurai both die.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: In this not-so-amazing sequel, Electro maybe dies. Goblin and Rhino live, however.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier: Arnim Zola may or may not be gone for good; it’s pretty likely he’s still out there, but again, gotta presume him dead. Pierce is definitely dead.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Ronan the Accuser dies.

X-Men: Days of Future Past: Trask doesn’t die, yet another reason this movie is amazing.

Ant-Man: Yellowjacket dies at the end.

Shitastic Fuck: In this turd, Gimp Doom dies.

Avengers: Age of Ultron: Ultron is killed in an ambiguous fashion. Klaw, however, is ok, if down by a hand. Strucker on the other hand… dead. And so is Quicksilver.

Deadpool: Ajax is dead.

Doctor Strange: Kaecilius is probably dead.

Batman v Superman: Luthor is sadly not dead, but Doomsday and KGBeast a re.

Suicide Squad: Enchantress gets killed in the end.

Captain America: Civil War: Zemo is thankfully alive at the end.

X-Men: Apocalypse: Apocalypse is blown apart in the end.

A LOT of these villains are dead, or if not, they never amount to anything ever again. It pisses me off that studios refuse to continuously utilize beloved foes, especially when it ends up going against a heroes code by letting the villain die or killing them themselves. It’s a trend I really hope dies off soon (ha ha).

[wonderfulworldofmichaelford]

Shit I Hate #2: Aspects of the DCEU (And the Psychopathic Portion of Its Fandom)

So, I’m sure a lot of you think I outright hate the DCEU. I haven’t been shy from giving harsh criticisms of it in the past, though the whole hardcore anti-DCEU thing from a while back was only to get rid of a particularly annoying mutual (and she and people like her will be brought up later in this post, don’t worry). So now, here, I will give my honest-to-god opinions on the DCEU, and talk about what it is I hate about it. Because I certainly don’t hate everything about it; there’s plenty of value to be  found in it. But it has some glaring flaws I want to address.

So, as I said, I don’t hate the DCEU. In fact, I really, really want it to succeed. Anyone with a brain wants it to get better; if there’s only one company making good superhero movies, well, people are gonna get fatigued. Good competition is better for business than steamrolling the competition. But sadly, the DCEU has been, from an objective standpoint, incredibly disappointing.

It’s totally okay to like and enjoy these movies; like I said, there is plenty to enjoy and admire. But from an objective standpoint, I can’t say any of these films are very good as superhero movies. Let me go into what I mean: the superhero movie genre is obviously not set in stone, and it can encompass a lot of things: it can be dark and gritty, lighthearted and comic, a mixture of the two… But DC has tended to veer towards dark and gritty when it comes to adaptations, especially when it comes to Batman. Out of the seven Batman films from the 80s to today, five of them have been darker and grittier than your standard comic book fare (Tum Burton’s and Nolan’s Batman films to be precise). The other two are much-maligned for their campy tone and silliness. Now, Nolan’s films, while being dark and gritty, are very well regarded for the most part, particularly the middle entry of the franchise, The Dark Knight. This film is one of my all-time favorite films, and is probably the film that has held DC back the most as they try and start up their shared cinematic universe.

The reason Nolan’s Batman films work despite their dark and gritty nature is because they are much more grounded in reality than your standard superhero fare as well as featuring a hero that tends to deal with darker fare in general. DC, in their rush to join the cinematic universe bandwagon Marvel kickstarted, decided that Nolan’s successful Batman films would be the best films to emulate when going for their reboots; the problem is, their first film in the DCEU was a Superman film, and Zach Snyder was directing.

Zach Snyder is not a bad director; in fact, he has directed some truly amazing comic book adaptations (Watchmen and 300). The thing is, though, that Snyder was always best at faithfully translating someone else’s work to live action. He managed to deliver a faithful adaptation of Alan Moore’s infamously unfilmable graphic novel hat honestly improves on it in some areas, and the same goes for his adaptation of Frank Miller’s tale of the 300 Spartans. Original material is not his strong suit; look at Sucker Punch, one of the most awful, brainless action films ever shat out, and the point where you can see his career starting to spiral into Shymalanian failure. Man of Steel is not an adaptation of any one Superman story, and the questionable elements of it are not easy to ignore with Snyder’s style. The incredible destruction during the final battle, the weak characterization of Zod, the more violent Superman, Superman killing Zod, it’s not as easy tos wallow with the pretentious pseudo-Nolan style Snyder is going for. While he’s great at adapting other people’s work, Snyder is not good at emulating other director’s styles, and it really makes the film one hard to recommend. It’s a dark, gritty, and dour Superman movie, and Superman is not a hero people wanted to see get dark and brooding. Still, Man of Steel is not a film I’d say is objectively good or bad; it’s a very mixed movie, and I’d say it’s on the fence. At the very least, as the first movie in a franchise, it had great room to improve with a sequel. A sequel would address the flaws, fix plotholes, just work everything into something more enjoyable. I mean, all the actors did a good job with what they were given, and Cavill is easily my favorite live action Superman, so a sequel would easily improve on this, right?

That’s sadly not what we got. Not entirely anyway.

I once said the DCEU was like if Marvel had released their films like this: Iron Man → The Avengers → Guardians of the Galaxy → Avengers: Age of Ultron → Thor. Some asshat responded with some smug, sarcastic condescension saying “Oh why not have an origin story for every character in Lord of the Rings before Lord of the Rings actually came out? :)” This analogy is incredibly stupid, as Tolkien likely would have LOVED that, and superhero movies REQUIRE character setup. Do you know why The Avengers was as enjoyable as it was? Because all of these characters had already been set up in other films, so the movie didn’t need to feed us all these backstories for all these characters, just giving “need to know” characterization for any newcomers. A big crossover like this only can work if there’s proper setup; if Freddy vs. Jason happened after the first Friday the 13th and before a single Nightmare on Elm Street movie it probably wouldn’t be a very good film. It had plenty of films to build up what a threat Freddy and Jason were. Batman v Superman does not do that. It is the followup to Man of Steel, and it expects us to just go with two brand new, never-before-seen characters, one who has little to no backstory given and one whose backstory and characterization takes up a good chunk of the first third of the film. There really should have been a new Batman film, a Superman sequel, and Wonder Woman’s movie prior to this. They didn’t have to be origin stories, a brief origin like Batman’s at the start of Batman v Superman would have been fine, but audiences needed SOMETHING so we wouldn’t just be thrown in and forced to accept shit. The lack of buildup even seeps into the cameos; we are thrown the Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg origins one after the other in a three minute span of time. It’s like they’re trying to cram as many origins in at once instead of bothering to take time establishing these characters. Imagine if in the comics there was one panel of Batman’s parents getting show, and then Batman is just an accepted part of the universe from there on out. What the filmmakers don’t seem to get is, even though most of us know the general story, not everyone is a comic fan with years of experience in background and lore. The reason buildup is needed is for newcomers, people unfamiliar with the characters. Just throwing characters in alienates people.

Of course, this is the least of that film’s problems. The tone and even the scenes are extremely dark and bleak until the very end. There’s very little levity, unless you can bring yourself to laugh at Eisenberg’s cringeworthy performance. Now, obviously, I’m not saying there needs to be tons and tons of jokes; The Dark Knight had rather sparse humor, and movies like the Iron Man sequels, Thor: The Dark World, and a good chunk of Age of Ultron are very weak due to the oversaturation of comedic elements. But having this level of darkness and crushing gloom and moodiness can wear on audiences; it can be hard for people to give a shit about a story and characters in a miserable setting. And this is a common criticism; aside from Wonder Woman, people have found it hard to care about the heroes in this film. Their characterization can come across as unlikable, bitter, and mean. While this works for Batman, for Superman this is even more alien than he is.

And again, it’s not like this movie has nothing going for it; the fight scenes are all fantastic, Bruce’s origin is well done, seeing the Big Three together is cool and all the actors save Eisenberg do well… but it’s not enough. This movie is, quite frankly, a hot mess, a film that apes the Nolan style with no idea what made it work, much as all the awful Shrek clones that came out in the 2000s that tried to be Shrek without understanding why it was such a good film in the first place. It’s just dark, bleak, and edgy because that’s what they think audiences want! And that is most definitely not the case, to a certain extent.

Audiences DO like having more mature superhero stories; The Dark Knight and The Winter Soldier certainly prove that, what with their more serious tones. But, especially in the sort of culture we have these days, people don’t want to see darkness and bleakness in their superhero films anymore. Superheros are supposed to be escapism and excitement, something enjoyable to see when you want to escape the darkness of the world. In an America that has experienced years of riots, protests, and terrible news, is it any surprise that audiences are rejecting DC’s dark and brooding hero stories for Marvel’s more lighthearted-with-serious-elements movies?

This brings me to the biggest thing I hate: the insane, miserable anti-MCU pro-DCEU apologists. Now, like I said, there’s nothing wrong with being a fan of these movies. Hell, despite my criticisms, I have a great deal of admiration for elements of the franchise, and I enjoyed Suicide Squad a great deal. But the levels some people go to is disgusting and disturbing.

The perfect example is a mutual I used to have. She was really nice and cool for a while, and liked both Marvel and DC. Then Age of Ultron came out. After that, her intelligence went downhill, and she became a rabid hater of the MCU. She would constantly post about how she hated it, while praising the DCEU. She’d reblog tons of posts with asinine criticisms of the MCU and had a sort of smug sense of superiority about her love of the DC films. It came to the point she was outright bashing MCU fans and calling anyone who defended the films, including me, a ‘stan,’ while ignoring and deflecting any criticisms of DC’s movies. She was one of the people who believed Marvel was paying off critics, even pointing to the great reviews Doctor Strange got as evidence (she was convinced the movie was some evil racist mess that whitewashed for the sake of profit, which is so far from the truth it’s laughable). This is ignoring the fact that paying critics off like that would be incredibly counterproductive and would be a waste of money, but at this point critical thinking was not her forte.

And this wasn’t unique to her; the incredibly rabid fans are ALL like that. They all believe the lies about Disney and Marvel bribing critics, they all hop up and down and accuse the MCU of racism, they all screech about how bad Marvel is and how they cram jokes into everything (even though there are only about five movies where this is a big problem). They are all the some kind of person who is smug and condescending and acts like they’re mentally superior for enjoying certain types of people fighting in colorful underwear. They are in the same league of stupid shittiness as anti-bronies and anti-Frozen, and they may honestly be less intelligent than either of those groups. Now, obviously, there are plenty of normal, reasonable people who enjoy or even prefer the DCEU to the MCU. This isn’t something that affects the entire fandom, it’s just the kind of people I’ve had to experience in large numbers.

So, let’s sum up what exactly I hate about the DCEU:

1. Snyder’s piss-poor direction and influence

2. The decision to constantly ape Nolan’s style, despite the fact they don’t seem to get why people liked films like The Dark Knight

3. Rushing in to a cinematic universe with no buildup

4. Questionable casting choices, such as Eisenberg as Luthor and Amber Heard

5. The lack of levity in their first two movies to help offset the crushing darkness

6. The constant pushing of extended cuts better than the theatrical release; they need to just release the full cuts to theaters and stop fucking with director’s visions

7. Speaking of which, the disastrous mangling of Suicide Squad

8. The rabid uber-fans who have a superiority complex and are just childish shitheads

That about sums up the shit I hate about the DCEU. I don’t hate the actual DCEU itself, though I have to admit it’s hard to enjoy aside from Suicide Squad so far (would it have killed them to keep more Leto in and not have the fucking trailer company submit a cut they mashed with the director’s?). What I hate is a lot of artistic choices they’ve put into it, the direction it has gone, and how fucking awful some of the fans can get. I’m hyped as hell for Wonder Woman and cautiously optimistic about Justice League, and I cannot wait to see Affleck’s Batman film and Dwayne Johnson as Black Adam. I just really want the filmmakers to take the criticisms of their works to heart and help make the DCEU a worthy rival for the MCU instead of looking like a cheap bandwagoner like it does now.

We can only hope.

[cedence]

The way Temu has made Google shop listings useless.