View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
|
Woomy
Joined: 22 Sep 2016
Posts: 110
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:36 pm
|
|
|
Top Gun wrote: | There is no God. |
Well, Nickelback's "All The Right Reasons" album selling more than A Perfect Circle's entire discography was already proof of that, but this just reminds us even more.
|
Back to top |
|
|
leafy sea dragon
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 7163
Location: Another Kingdom
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:29 pm
|
|
|
I'm guessing this movie's pre-production got started before Pixels came out. Considering that's also Sony, I wonder if someone at Sony thought Pixels would become a runaway hit.
I'm also astonished at the sheer cries of despair here. Is it that surprising to you guys that an emoji-themed movie would be made? Emoji are popular. It would make sense that there'd be a Hollywood movie based around it.
Sakurazuka_Reika wrote: | ...why? |
As the old saying goes, "Why not?"
InuNaruPokeAlchemist wrote: | I don't want to live on this planet anymore. |
If you feel that strongly about this movie's existence, you probably won't be missed anyway once you head out into outer space.
|
Back to top |
|
|
AnimeLordLuis
Joined: 27 Jan 2015
Posts: 1626
Location: The Borderlands of Pandora
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:16 pm
|
|
|
Someone really needs to put Sony pictures out of it's misery because no matter how hard they try they just can't make a good movie anymore.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lostlorn Forest
Joined: 03 Apr 2014
Posts: 544
Location: USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:33 pm
|
|
|
It really can't be that bad. Anyone who likes James Corden knows there's hope for it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
FenixFiesta
Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2581
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:32 am
|
|
|
Lostlorn Forest wrote: |
It really can't be that bad. Anyone who likes James Corden knows there's hope for it. |
However, it really can't be THAT good either, especially if Sony is expecting a Lego Movie level of viewer response.
|
Back to top |
|
|
gilnokoibito
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Posts: 109
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:46 am
|
|
|
I honestly don't understand the emoji craze lately. They've been around for a long time now but lately there's pillows and blankets and shirts with them and half of the tweens that come to the bakery I work at want emoji themed cakes and cupcakes. It's really a popular trend lately and I just don't get it.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Yuvelir
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Posts: 1618
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:28 pm
|
|
|
gilnokoibito wrote: | I honestly don't understand the emoji craze lately. They've been around for a long time now but lately there's pillows and blankets and shirts with them and half of the tweens that come to the bakery I work at want emoji themed cakes and cupcakes. It's really a popular trend lately and I just don't get it. |
Smartphones have reached max use and popularity.
10-15 years ago, when they were already ubiquitous, most of those people asking for emoji cupcakes either were still wearing diapers or their only contact with technology was that Nokia phone that could send at most 160 ASCII characters at a time.
Plain text emoticons just don't have that much of a visual (and standarized) impact and internet forums, MSN messenger and such didn't have a fraction of the user base that smartphones have with their WhatsApp, and their LINE and their Telegram.
Same with how different the meaning and implications of "meme" were 10 years ago and now.
Or in short, through smartphone spread, there are many more times people actively using internet on a daily basis now than a decade ago.
That also increases the amount of people more likely to be impressed and share everything they find (in and out of internet) than the nerds of yore.
|
Back to top |
|
|
HeeroTX
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 2046
Location: Austin, TX
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 12:46 pm
|
|
|
leafy sea dragon wrote: | Emoji are popular. It would make sense that there'd be a Hollywood movie based around it. |
I was going to argue that this is a stupid reason to make a movie, that the probable target audience loves things like cars, and you wouldn't make a movie about just "cars". But then I remembered that Pixar not only did that, but made MORE than one. So I retract any arguments and disbelief I had. How did "Angry Birds" do? If the parents and kiddos made that profitable (I have no idea if that's true) then this can probably aim to repeat that.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vee-Tee
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 133
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:28 pm
|
|
|
Why?
Because even if it flops domestically, Sony are probably still going to make their money back worldwide, and they'll market the crap out of this movie to make sure it has that "reach."
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sheriru
Joined: 27 May 2016
Posts: 130
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:29 pm
|
|
|
I hope they do Molester Moon as well, so there is at least something to laugh
Like hell i watch it tho
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rob49152
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
Posts: 118
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:50 pm
|
|
|
Megiddo wrote: | Don't care what the masses do, they're emoticons. They were emoticons on early BBS. They were emoticons on early instant messengers (eg, ICQ/MSN/AOL) .They will always be emoticons. |
Sorry to be one of 'those' people but no they are not the same.
Emoticons are a pictorial representation of a facial expression using a combination of punctuation marks, numbers and letters, usually written to express a person's feelings or mood. They appear relatively the same across platforms (depending on the font being used)
Emoji are single graphic ideogram used in electronic messages and Web pages and use a unicode block code (ex. U+1F602) to recall the graphic image used in a message. They appear different on each platform and are font independent (because they don't use fonts).
they are two completely different things. Programs like ICQ/MSN/AOL and message boards convert the commonly used Emoticons into Emoji on rendering.
That being said... this movie is an abomination on everything and everyone you hold dear. People complain that Hollywood has run out of ideas. This just proves that they've run out of good ideas and are grasping at anything people deem as 'popular' because it might sell.
|
Back to top |
|
|
EricJ2
Joined: 01 Feb 2014
Posts: 4016
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:33 pm
|
|
|
HeeroTX wrote: |
leafy sea dragon wrote: | Emoji are popular. It would make sense that there'd be a Hollywood movie based around it. |
I was going to argue that this is a stupid reason to make a movie, that the probable target audience loves things like cars, and you wouldn't make a movie about just "cars". But then I remembered that Pixar not only did that, but made MORE than one. |
And not just "about cars", but about the spirits of NASCAR and Route 66.
Which is why Pixar, unlike other studios, knows the difference between an animated movie you want to make, with some actual emotional involvement, and one you think you're "supposed" to make.
Quote: | So I retract any arguments and disbelief I had. How did "Angry Birds" do? If the parents and kiddos made that profitable (I have no idea if that's true) then this can probably aim to repeat that. |
With Sony, and most studios, it's what I continually refer to as the "Welcome Our New Overlords" theory (yes, from the Simpsons line):
Most execs don't know what new technology IS. They're too busy. Since they don't have the field experience to get hooked on a particular technology on a fandom level, they don't know why one technology becomes a hit and another doesn't--They don't know why we stream or why we watch disks, for example, so they saw that MP3 replaced CD's, and are convinced that streaming will replace Blu-ray off the face of the earth, right after 4K UHD replaces Blu3D out of existence.
And since business involves not being caught behind the new trend, ANY announced technology is a "new trend" if you don't know any better. So kiss up to it fast, or be steamrollered over!
While Sony execs in the US may use cellphones for their deals, they may not use the other apps as much as Sony execs in Japan do--But the more they see App crazes in the US becoming more popular than Sony's own stinke...er, movies, the more they believe that cellphone users are the unconquerable New Overlords to offer their loyalty to!
And if not them, then there's always the giant ants.
(And Angry Birds did well enough for early spring--especially next to Zootopia as the Anti-Batman movie--although mostly in China, and this was still back in those Warcraft days when they thought anything CGI would save their box office in China.)
Oh yeah, and of course the obvious reason: Emojis look like Minions, but the Minions are over at Universal.
Last edited by EricJ2 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:28 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
Back to top |
|
|
Megiddo
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 8360
Location: IL
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:21 pm
|
|
|
Rob49152 wrote: |
Emoticons are a pictorial representation of a facial expression using a combination of punctuation marks, numbers and letters, usually written to express a person's feelings or mood. They appear relatively the same across platforms (depending on the font being used) |
So when I type @= into ICQ and get what sort of facial expression do you get from that? Have you seen a face that looks like that? Emoticons are not restrained to being faces. They are an icon which represents emotion.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rob49152
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
Posts: 118
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:59 pm
|
|
|
Megiddo wrote: |
So when I type @= into ICQ and get what sort of facial expression do you get from that? Have you seen a face that looks like that? Emoticons are not restrained to being faces. They are an icon which represents emotion. |
Try not to be so pendantic. Unless you need to feel better about yourself on the internet. The fact is still that emoji and emoticons are defined as two separate and different things even if you don't agree.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
|
Back to top |
|
|
Megiddo
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 8360
Location: IL
|
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:14 pm
|
|
|
Pedantic? When someone asserts something that's false it's only normal to give a counter-example. I provided you with a counter-example which proved your assertion false. Pretty simple.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|