UltimateDisney.com/DVDizzy.com Reviews: Discussion Thread

[Disney Duster]

I don't think he finds the film less emotional, I think he is bypassing the emotion altogether. And I disagree with the rest of your post.

[Escapay]

I don't think he finds the film less emotional, I think he is bypassing the emotion altogether.

Now you're twisting your own words around. Do you even realize what you're saying at this point?

• What's up with your emotional heart, dude?
  
  [He] seemed to prefer humor and thrills over emotion.
  
  I don't know how people find Coco less emotional than the four other Pixar films you mentioned.
  
  What you quoted totally says to me he prefers humor and thrills over emotion
  
  But this film is more emotional than humorous and thrilling and he makes no mention of it.
  
  If he doesn't prefer humor and thrills to emotion...

The whole crux of your arguments over the past few posts is that you wanted Luke to talk about the emotion because you mistakenly believed he prefers thrills and humor to it. Now you're claiming that his absence of talking about emotion is not so much about him thinking the film is less emotional, but that he has no consideration or opinion for that particular aspect of the film at all. Make up your damn mind.

And I disagree with the rest of your post.

Disagree or not, there is roughly ten years of posts one could search through to find plenty of cases where you present your opinion as absolute fact, and I'm sure plenty of them will also show your confirmation bias as well.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

I originally wrote Escapay won, and he still may, but after thinking about it, I am still bothered by Luke skipping over the emotion of the film and sounding like humor and thrills are what mattered to make a film one of Pixar's best. If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know. I know Luke appreciates emotion, I just didn't like what he said in this particular review and what I felt he was saying that I was to gather from his words.

[Disney Duster]

Hey, Luke, there's an error that has not been fixed yet, so in case you want to fix it, I just wanted to report that your wrote "St Wars: The Last Jedi" instead of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

[Escapay]

This is not about winning. This is about getting it through your clearly-addled head that just because a person doesn't talk about emotion in a review, does not mean they themselves are neglecting that particular aspect of their film-viewing experience. And it certainly doesn't mean that they apply that weird logic to an entire studio's oeuvre. I'm just going to share something Luke wrote six years ago. It pretty much destroys any assumption one may have that he doesn't consider the emotion of a film (Pixar or otherwise) when he's viewing them.

Revisiting and reassessing the Pixar canon has been of much interest to me. In the months leading up to Toy Story 3's release, I rewatched the studio's first ten features, eager to see them in a new light and make sure they lived up to my fond and ever so slightly faded memories. And they did. I'm still not crazy about Ratatouille, although I can appreciate much of it. For all of the rest (excluding Cars 2), I am comfortable declaring my love. The love varies from near-perfection to being aware of certain issues but not terribly concerned by them. If I'm able to divide the ten beloved works into those two groups, five of them end up with the unconditional adoration needed to classify as all-time favorites. The Incredibles is one of them, along with the absurdly undervalued A Bug's Life and the three Toy Story movies (whose middle installment is closest to being on the bubble).

[...]

So many superlatives have been placed on so many of Pixar's films that it almost feels useless to add mine to the chorus. And yet, my enthusiasm for Pixar's feature films is intense and virtually unrivaled by any other creator in the vast history of art. I don't believe that I can overstate my appreciation, which has strengthened in recent years by watching thousands of films, almost all of which fail to produce the same level of emotion and enjoyment. I've read plenty of discourse on all their films and while humanity is as unanimously approving of most Pixar productions as any contemporary entertainment, I'm not convinced the praise has gone far enough.

When you watch as many movies as I do, one viewing is enough for most things for the indefinite future. I've now seen The Incredibles close to ten times and I have not tired of it in the slightest. Its charms are too numerous and too powerful for me to give any less than my full attention and admiration. It is an extraordinarily crafted film full of humor, heart, and excitement. Brad Bird has created a rich and compelling universe with indelible characters and a mature, appealing family dynamic in the foreground. There are enough ideas and ambitions here to sustain several films. Every plot point adds something and without belaboring or wasting any time. You could literally write an academic chapter on any element, event, or exchange here and uncover layers of intrigue factoring into the film's countless achievements. The Incredibles is ripe for discussion on everything from marital challenges to celebrating mediocrity to superhero attire.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

I'm really glad Luke wrote that. And you're right Escapay that he didn't have to mention emotion, but Coco was so emotional, like it was such a big part of it, I didn't get why Luke made no mention of it and instead talked about only the humor and thrills he said it had less of. If he didn't find the film emotional, I can't understand how. Also, confirmation bias on your part on me being "clearly-addled."

[Escapay]

Also, confirmation bias on your part on me being "clearly-addled."

*sigh*

No, it is not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias would be if I were to make my own assumption of you, and re-interpret your words into meaning what I want them to mean. All I've done is take your words and interpret them exactly as written. Luke clearly cares about the emotion of a film. Your confirmation bias makes you think he doesn't, simply because of what he chooses to talk about (and not talk about) in one, solitary review. I've tried to give evidence that Luke cares, and your only response is, "Oh, okay, I'm glad he wrote that. It still doesn't explain Coco." You are missing the point.
That he chooses not to talk about it in one, solitary review is the argument you're presenting, but it amounts to nothing more than: "I wanted him to, why didn't he?" which you've continued to stretch out to mean that Luke either doesn't care about emotion, or that he only prefers humor and thrills. I've quoted your words already on it before, showing you clearly the words you chose to use, and yet you still don't understand it.

No, my confirmation bias is not showing, because I'm not using it. As for addled:

• addled
  
  verb (used with or without object), addled, addling.
  
  1. to make or become confused.

Evidence:

What's up with your emotional heart, dude?

he said it was not up to the heights of Pixar's best and he seemed to prefer humor and thrills over emotion.

I guess I never thought everything Luke write must be personal preference.

But I find it weird he never mentions Coco's emotional level.

What you quoted totally says to me he prefers humor and thrills over emotion

If that's not what he's saying ok, then I'm wrong

Are you using what I say as evidence? Just like what I am doing with what he says?

it is fact, not opinion.

I think he is bypassing the emotion altogether.

I am still bothered by Luke skipping over the emotion of the film and sounding like humor and thrills are what mattered to make a film one of Pixar's best. If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know.

I know Luke appreciates emotion, I just didn't like what he said in this particular review and what I felt he was saying that I was to gather from his words.

All of which is pretty confusing when someone's trying to figure out where you stand on Luke's review.

First you say it was pretty positive overall, but you wanted to know why he didn't talk about emotion.

Then you say he prefers humor and thrills when there was never any evidence to point that way.

Then you say that he bypasses emotion altogether.

Then you say that you didn't like what he said in this review.

But twice earlier, you say you may be wrong on what you think he says.

But you still are questioning it.

Addled.

QED.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

"I wanted him to, why didn't he?" is completey incorrect. It is true I want him to, but it isn't the problem. It is that the film is very much full of emotion (not an opinion, as it is clear the filmakers put in things intended to be emotional as opposed to humorous or thrilling or something else) and yet he makes no mention of it and I find that not necessarily to be confusing but to make me wonder what is going on, and along with making no mention of emotion he says it wasn't as good as Pixar's best films and didn't have as much humor and thrills as Pixar's best films. What, then, can be concluded but that he skips emotion for this film and prefers humor and thrills and thinks that humor and thrills would make the film better and are what matters? It is true that by your provided evidence it looks like Luke does care about emotion to some degree, but alongside the evidence that he skips emotion to talk about humor and thrills making Pixar's films the best, you can see where some evidence also points. He may care about emotion but seems to prefer humor and thrills.

What's up with your emotional heart, dude?

Indeed this is about me wondering what is going on.

he said it was not up to the heights of Pixar's best and he seemed to prefer humor and thrills over emotion.

A statement.

I guess I never thought everything Luke write must be personal preference.

A realization.

But I find it weird he never mentions Coco's emotional level.

Me wondering again. If you want to call it confused, I guess you could, but it wasn't about what you sounded like you thought I was confused about.

What you quoted totally says to me he prefers humor and thrills over emotion

A statement on what the evidence says to me.

If that's not what he's saying ok, then I'm wrong

A statement which points to me not having confirmation bias, and in relation to the rest of what I have written, it says, "I might be wrong about Luke preferring humor and thrills to emotion, but I don't think I am because of such and such evidence." That should not be confusing to someone.

Are you using what I say as evidence? Just like what I am doing with what he says?

Yeah, this again should not be confusing.

it is fact, not opinion.

Or this.

I think he is bypassing the emotion altogether.

Or this. He didn't talk about the emotion at all. He may appreciate emotion, but he skipped over it in his review of Coco.

I am still bothered by Luke skipping over the emotion of the film and sounding like humor and thrills are what mattered to make a film one of Pixar's best. If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know.

Where is the confusion here?

I know Luke appreciates emotion, I just didn't like what he said in this particular review and what I felt he was saying that I was to gather from his words.

Yes, I acknowledge the Luke appreciates emotion, but I didn't like what he said, and I didn't like that he seemed to be saying emotion doesn't matter as much as humor or thrills or even that he may be suggesting the film has no emotion as he makes no mention of it!

In addition, I took a look at Luke's review of The Lego Batman Movie and it points to him appreicating emotion, but then he talks about the film succeeding because of wit, humor, and excitement and not emotion and so, I'm still left wondering...

[Escapay]

"I wanted him to, why didn't he?" is completely incorrect.

You're rewriting your posts again. Pretty much everything we've discussed here has rested on the simple fact that you thought Coco is emotional, but Luke's review makes no mention of emotion, and you clearly felt it should.

What's up with your emotional heart, dude?

Indeed this is about me wondering what is going on.

And it begins your "Luke doesn't care about emotion" thread that you've inferred throughout the next several posts. By your questioning about it at all, you basically imply that you feel he doesn't have the emotional capacity that you want him to have.

he said it was not up to the heights of Pixar's best and he seemed to prefer humor and thrills over emotion.

A statement.

No, an inference ("he seemed to prefer..."), and the first of many that you confuse as fact.

I guess I never thought everything Luke write must be personal preference.

A realization.

One which you still don't understand.

But I find it weird he never mentions Coco's emotional level.

Me wondering again. If you want to call it confused, I guess you could, but it wasn't about what you sounded like you thought I was confused about.

Because over the past few responses in this thread, you have been inconsistent in your claims about emotion, Luke, and writing about it in reviews (Coco or otherwise). Either you're wondering why he doesn't write about it, you use your confirmation bias to state that he prefers other things to emotion, then you say that he outright neglects it entirely. This is simply the beginning of it, because you fixate specifically on why, out of all the films, Luke doesn't talk about emotion in one film you want him to talk about emotion.

What you quoted totally says to me he prefers humor and thrills over emotion

A statement on what the evidence says to me.

You're basically confirming your confirmation bias which was informed by your inference of his review.

If that's not what he's saying ok, then I'm wrong

A statement which points to me not having confirmation bias, and in relation to the rest of what I have written, it says, "I might be wrong about Luke preferring humor and thrills to emotion, but I don't think I am because of such and such evidence." That should not be confusing to someone.

Your attempted rebuttal just shows your confirmation bias. "I might be wrong [...] but I don't think I am." That's how someone with confirmation bias thinks. They can see all the evidence in the world in front of them, but interpret it solely to mean what they want it to mean. You are altering facts to fit your views rather than considering altering your views to fit the facts.

Are you using what I say as evidence? Just like what I am doing with what he says?

Yeah, this again should not be confusing.

You're trying to turn confirmation bias back on me when all I've done is taken the facts of the review and of your statements and shown them for what they are. That's the confusion, because you don't fully understand confirmation bias.

it is fact, not opinion.

Or this.

It is confusion because you are known on this forum for presenting your opinion as fact.

I think he is bypassing the emotion altogether.

Or this. He didn't talk about the emotion at all. He may appreciate emotion, but he skipped over it in his review of Coco.

And therein is the confusion. You hinge so much on that he didn't talk about emotion that your questioning of why has been muddled, again traveling from the point of "he doesn't talk about it" to "he doesn't prefer it" to "he ignores emotion completely."

I am still bothered by Luke skipping over the emotion of the film and sounding like humor and thrills are what mattered to make a film one of Pixar's best. If I'm wrong, I'd really like to know.

Where is the confusion here?

As if you'd ever accept that you're wrong about your confirmation bias.

I know Luke appreciates emotion, I just didn't like what he said in this particular review and what I felt he was saying that I was to gather from his words.

Yes, I acknowledge the Luke appreciates emotion, but I didn't like what he said, and I didn't like that he seemed to be saying emotion doesn't matter as much as humor or thrills or even that he may be suggesting the film has no emotion as he makes no mention of it!

So basically, the "I wanted him to, why didn't he?" that you said was incorrect.

In addition, I took a look at Luke's review of The Lego Batman Movie and it points to him appreicating emotion, but then he talks about the film succeeding because of wit, humor, and excitement and not emotion and so, I'm still left wondering...

If you're going to play that game, then just go through every single review of his and cite when he talks about emotion.

You've laid claim that he doesn't consider the emotion of a Pixar film when compared to all their works, so why not widen the scope and go through all sixteen years of his reviews if you're suddenly going to throw in The Lego Batman Movie into the mix.

I'm fed up with this thread because you keep going in circles on what you want, what you say you want, what you think I'm saying, and what you interpret in order to support what you think you said earlier. If there's a response to this, I'm ignoring it because life is too short to argue with you.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

I thought you were saying the only reason I was asking "why didn't he?" was because I "wanted him to", but it is also because I found it amiss that he didn't. But I didn't realize you are right about him praising Pixar for emotion. I do understand it's his opinion, I am not inconsistent, I am not altering facts, and I don't think he ignores emotion in life, just in that review, which is true! But about the rest you're right, you win.

[Disney Duster]

Well I really liked your The Disaster Artist review, Luke. I t was great! Good pick-up on how you saw James Franco's portrayal and what the movie was doing. I didn't know you read the book and saw The Room! I have seen The Room in preparation for the film with some friends. It is so bad it's good, but it's also kind of hard to watch, it's a little unbearable!

[Disney Duster]

Hey, I thought the review of Call Me By Your Name was really good! I think Luke summed it up well that it focused on atmosphere, acting and emotion more than a story. I felt it was bad that it didn't have much in the way of story, but now I see what the film was trying to do and I like it even more.

[Disney Duster]

Hey Luke, love the new stills that come with the front page news!

[blackcauldron85]

Hey Luke, love the new stills that come with the front page news!

I do, too! Looks nice.

[Disney's Divinity]

Hey Luke, love the new stills that come with the front page news!

I do, too! Looks nice.

I thought so, too.

While I'm here, just wanted to say I loved the Deadpool 2 review.

[Disney Duster]

I liked your The Nun review Luke! I saw the movie and liked it.

[Disney Duster]

Luke, were you being serious when you said Smallfoot had a dark story?!

EDIT: Ok so I read the review and I guess you were serious. The movie sounds lame, but it looked a different, goofy kind of lame from the commercials anyway. Thanks for the review!

[Disney Duster]

I read your Green Book review! I usually don't read reviews of movies before I see them because they give me preconceptions of the film before I see it and I feel that can ruin me forming my own opinion. I liked your review, how you explained the film along with explaining how you feel critics say what they say and why they are that way and why what they say is important. Great stuff. I wonder if I'll ever feel differently about the film if I ever see it just because audiences and critics have been saying such good things about it.

[Disney Duster]

Well, Luke, your first page description made me seek out Roma on Netflix. It was a really good movie...but also one of those that is really good but also boring. In the end, I'm glad I saw it but it really bored me and I don't ever care to see it again.

[Disney Duster]

Hey Luke, I liked your It: Chapter Two review. I liked how you said the film has the adults battling their inner fears and demons and how both films really are more sophisticated and offer so much characterization. I liked the movie a lot when I saw it.