page 12 of part 3 of this
I like the colors on this page even though they are lifted directly off of previous pages where I was less taken with them.
I must say I am continually disappointed with how relatively reponsible nemitz is turning out to be. Although consider that it acts like a buffoon when it enjoys something but suddenly acts like it is smart when elpse does something stupid. Typical hypocrite mitz.
I have blatantly ignored where that circular table was on previous pages. I am not Herge or Don Rosa, I can get away with that.
Don Rosa once drew some Scrooge McDuck comic scene from two different angles in two different stories since one involved time-traveling to the other, and he made a special point that all the bricks and incidental background details were consistent even though almost nobody would check on that. I am the sort of person who would check on that, but regrettably also the sort to hope nobody else would check on it.
May 19: great gimpity did I kill him by posting this??! I should have given him a more proven weapon to defend with than the awkward gun-blade.
I could not let my inoperable art tablet keep me from honoring the legendary career of broadcaster Morley Seifer.
I suspect tumblr is not going to appreciate this as much as it did Squalo Renhart.
On my part this is surely either a cry for help or a statement of unwillingness to accept help. Ironically, this is one of the more coherent digital art works I have made recently. It is as if I cannot do well unless I am doing something that there is no need to do well.
My drawing tablet machine seems to have taken grave injury from a chance encounter with cucumber relish, and consequently I am not able to proceed on this matter for the immediately visible future.
There are three parts to this. None are complete. They cannot be completed. I only need to establish a visual impression of all the relevant points, which is done on this part and the third part. The second part however is troublesome. It was made a long time ago and looks very cheap. My intent was to use it cheaply, but now that parts 1 and 3 look merely inexpensive, and 2 must be brought in line. Perhaps the relish incident was not chance after all! They are working against me. It wants me to fuss and lose my mind over it even though it is only about two minutes long and unfinishable. I shall see them harshly disciplined.
May 11 is Bimshwel, the website’s, birth-day. I do not make mention of mine, because I do not want to make trouble for anyone else on my behalf. However, the website deserves no such courtesy. And it is now at the age i was when I started mutating and hating myself. I will work to make its life frustrating and unfulfilling because I am a terrible, resentful parent. I resent its youth and optimism. I resent the possibilities in its future. Just as I resent part 2 of this animation. These two grew up together and I will bring them in line or destroy them before they realize they are, together, stronger than I am. Website! Get in your room! I want to hear those scales! PRACTICE YOUR SCALES, WEBSITE!
As long as I am going to have no friends in social media I had better deserve it.
Rotten Tomatoes went from a website for people to identify ROTTEN films to one for corporate entities to imply that average films are exceptional. Which is, essentially, the OPPOSITE of its intended purpose: to sort through the rubbish hype.
If I hear one more movie ad reference its Rotten Tomatoes score I am going to punch the tv, And that is going to hurt my hand, which will not be productive!
I NEVER heard that happen in the 170 years of Rotten Tomatoes’ existence, then this year suddenly I have heard it at least five times. And I do not expose myself to television deliberately. It is probably much more rampant than that.
“95% on rotten tomatoes” just means 95% of reviews didn’t say the film was TERRIBLE. There is more to great than a lack of worst.
I think I heard it first for Spot-Light, then Zutopia and I lost track after that despite the scores being so ludicrously high that the described items should be immediately unforgettable.
I actually saw Spoflight, and while it has an interesting story, it is not a stellar cinema experience. I didn’t even think Mad Max Fluffy Robe was stellar, and while it predated the rotten tomatoes fad, It was apparently the only action movie ever allowed to win awards. I appreciate that it got fight to the point and didn’t fixate on irrelevant non-participants for half its run-time like the Transformers movies did, but its action portions were just as cluttered, zoomed in, camera-changey and indecipherable. And I resent any adventure that turns around and goes back the way it came. I don’t even go back the way I came when I go for a walk. I have compromised my personal safety to not be bored in this miserable overpriced dead-end boat town. In a movie whose base premise is the absence of safety, you can Find a different route! Or else what were you running from?
The tomato system is not any more accurate and inarguable than the thumbs-up/down system that once was a ubiquitous citation in movie advertisements, but it SOUNDS like it is, since it has a specific number. Wow that is 95 out of 100 instead of 4 out of 5 or 2 out of 2! That is so statisticy!
Additionally, the thumbs at least belonged to certain people. I do not consider any film critic a general, unimpeachable authority on entertainment, but it is possible to personally trust the opinion of an individual human on individual matters. Those tomatoes could be anybody. And a percentile does not indicate the total number of people who voted, either. I suppose to get to 99, depending on how you round it, requires at least 34 participants, since I have never seen a decimal score. But still we don’t know that 33 of those 34 thought toozopia was GREAT. Maybe most of them did, we don’t know, but I don’t believe 99% of zootopia viewers thought it was better than 99% of every movie they have seen, which is what I am intended to think. That it is one minor scrap away from perfection, and I can tell from here that it isn’t. My guess is it is more j-j abrams brand minimum level of effectiveness that doesn’t offend anyone in its intended audience. I have so little faith in the current culture to create stellar films that advertising which implies it happens constantly, to near PERFECTION, is suspicious to me.
undoubtedly no effort was spared in creating a city essentially identical to a real one except with every human shape changed to a humanized animal shape with an accompanying stupid animal pun to refer to it, but that just does not appeal to me Especially not after Pixar, now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the disney company and indistinguishable from it, has already done this about fifteen times, with monsters, insects, automobiles, or whatever. I’m even tired of remarking on how unappealing I find it! I was going to keep it to myself, because honestly I don’t have time to make my thought coherent but my rotten tomato gripe flowed into it and I have no choice.
My biases did not develop independent of the world. they have validity, somewhere. i did not choose to cringe when stuck in a cinema showing a preview for this. Ha ha ha! They are at the D M V and they hate it! Just like YOU hate it! Right? Therefore you RELATE and you feel validated by this experience and demand nothing more from it!
I am open to the idea that there is more to the film than that, but it makes no effort to imply that there is, nor do any of the fans of it whom I have encountered, even two months on. I certainly do not accept that it is one point off from perfect. Of course by now its score is only 98 percent! ha HA! also, Hoodboy, from 2014, has 98%, and I actually saw that and had more problems with it than I hypothetically anticipate having with zootopia. The Wrestler, my personal quintessential critically acclaimed aimless misery –literally the first movie I cite when the topic comes up– also has a solid 98% on rotten tomatoes. I wouldn’t even give The Wrestler a rotten pineapple. Toy Story 3, which I found bearable but frustrating and objectionable has 99% points. The two before it both have 100 despite being built on the same “don’t acknowledge master” premise that I can’t get past.
Singing in the Rain, which I do like, better than most films I have seen, having been able to see it without considerable hype that I was aware of preceding the viewing, is on there with a 100% score as well. But I hate that “Moses Supposes” song and the 1-dimensional treatment of the nontagonist Lina Lamont, and Donald O’Connor yelling out “mammy” several times for no clear reason. The “Gotta Dance” segment is incongruous with the rest of the picture, and doesn’t even make sense in the movie-within-a-movie-context it is presented as belonging to.
SO I like the film better than most I have seen, certainly better than its contemporary iThe Band Wagon, in which EVERY musical number is annoying and/or incongruous, but 100% implies perfection, which it is a long way from.
To contrast, the film I have watched within the past few years that I perhaps enjoyed best, 1980’s Flash Gordon, has a tomato score of 82%, which is probably about right; I am sure it has just as much stuff wrong with it as Singing in the Rain, and 82% is a pretty good time, for me. I can’t really hope for more than that, knowing me. Maleficent, which I found totally loathsome, and had just as much paid promotion and dumb fan hype as Zuzutopia, possibly slightly less porn fan-art, has 47% tomato points. However its “audience score” of 71% is higher than Flash’s 69%. What does all this mean? It means nothing! That’s my point! None of these figures have any value behind them. If a movie that real people LOVE has a low score from purportedly more valid people, and a movie that only I like has a high score, and a movie that is not really any better has a yet higher score, then the scores are garbage.
The television ad for zootopia literally says “residents of zootopia are just like you.” as if there is literally nothing else going on than another hideous 3d animated allegory of society with a few superficial things changed. The announcer doesn’t even add a big EXCEPT like game over 13 years ago. Why then are these residents interesting? Their appearances are, apparently, superficial. How does this remain fun and new to people?
The other cinema poster, that I didn’t take a picture of, because I hated the idea of somebody seeing me take that picture and assuming I just thought it was clever, shows a restroom door with different sized inset doors for animal people of different sizes. I do not want to watch a movie about people “just like [me]” going to use the toilet. Meanwhile, despite forcing all these differently shaped species into one excretion chamber, the sexes are still segregated down a strictly this or that line. They choose their human fashions based on binary sex rather than a limitless multiplicity of species that ought to create more specific needs. Maybe that is even addressed in the film. Although “addressed” does not mean “resolved,” or even “addressed in a meaningful fashion.” And the promotion implies that it is a-bcdefghijklmn-ok anyhow. I received enough addressed-without-resolution gags in Deadpool, where they work because that movie doesn’t think it is telling me something about society. Also its smug scumbag main character gets plenty of abuse for being one, which I appreciate.
With that said, telling me the zootopia fox takes a bullet through the rectum isn’t going to change my plan.
Nor will telling me the rabbit is actually the main character. It would be most implausible to shoot them both that way with the same bullet.