What films/shows/books do you break from typical conventional wisdom and love or hate?

Daigo_Bah

Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2000
Messages
8,177
Reaction score
8
You know how most people feel the same way about the quality, or lack thereof, in pop culture media? Or you feel like everyone is "wrong" about something ou like or dislike? Is there anything that you swing far from the norm with either loving or hating?

A few come to mind for me: everyone seems to love The Last Crusade and dislike Temple of Doom, and I'm just opposite! I am not a fan of the 3rd Indy film and just love the 2nd. What comes to mind for you guys?
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
Well, I guess I'm one of the few Star Wars fans who doesn't consider Empire Strikes Back to be superior to the original Star Wars. That's not to say that ESB isn't great; but Star Wars is still a better movie. Mainly because it can stand alone. Even if there had never been any sequels or prequels, Star Wars would still be one of the greatest films ever made. ESB is a good movie, but not as a standalone film because it has no beginning or ending. It didn't need to set up any characters, because everyone already knew them from the previous movie, and it didn't need to resolve anything, because it was designed to have a sequel. It's easy to be great when you don't need to set up or resolve anything. It's much harder to be great when you need to set up an entire universe AND bring the story to a satisfying conclusion within 2 hours. Star Wars managed to do that.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
3
I also think the original Star Wars (A New Hope) is the best Star Wars film.

I love the PT. The Phantom Menace is my 3rd favourite Star Wars film.

I like Crystal Skull better than Temple of Doom.

SuckerPunch is a great movie.

I loved the last season of GOT.

I think the Beatles are the most overrated band of all time. They are the original boy band.

I hate Drake.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,563
Reaction score
8
Stones > Beatles.

I can't stand Metallica.

I'm an ardent PT-Apologist.

'Raiders' is the only Indiana Jones worth watching, more than once.

I have no problem with GoT. nor Captain Marvel.

(who the **** is Drake?)

Kanye is a misunderstood genius.

I could spend all day watching the Maury show.

and I have a soft spot for Coronation Street. (don't judge).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
18
I have a few and it's sort of funny because my go-to when this comes up is EXACTLY in the first post. Temple of Doom is my favorite Indiana Jones film. I won't say it's the technical best Indiana Jones, but I don't think best and favorite are the same thing. I just find it to be so original. It wasn't afraid to go against the grain. From the get-go it starts off with a guts move. It's a prequel! But in the franchise it def. stands out as the most unique. It seems time has been kinder to it. It doesn't seem remotely as hated as it once was. It seems like Crystal Skull was viewed as so poor...it elevated Doom for a lot of people. I do, however, love Last Crusade too...but I can't deny it's the essence of a "safe" movie.

Perhaps the most controversial reaction I ever got in real life was my reaction to the original Sam Raimi Spider-Man film. I was a junior in High School at the time and everyone wanted my opinion on the film. I was the comic book guy everyone came to with questions, Spider-Man famously my favorite. I...HATED...it! I was quite literally the only person in my entire school who hated it and as a result people started to legit even trash me! It was kind of funny, "Hey, did you hear he hated Spider-Man?" spread like wildfire. People were shouting things at me in the halls and everything.

I actually enjoy all the Jurassic Park films. I think The Lost World is (mostly) brilliant, albeit with flawed scenes/moments. The gymnastic routine moment comes to mind. Ugh! Jurassic Park /// is utterly brain-dead stupid, I can recognize that, it's literally nothing but "Run, run, run!" Long gone is the portrayal of dinosaurs as animals, it's a straight-up B-Monster Movie. With that said, call it a guilty pleasure. I had fun! Jurassic World is just a soft reboot remake of the original, but again...if there's dinosaurs, I'll more than likely have fun. Even if it's mindless fun. Same goes for Fallen Kingdom.

I don't get why Casino Royale was considered the bees knees. I thought it was highly overrated, but not even that. I actually didn't even like it. I found it structured oddly, to say the least. The torture scene loses all suspense and becomes comical and ultimately I found the entire thing sadly anticlimactic. There was a moment when I felt the film should have ended only for it to go on about a half hour longer. Felt tacked on! While I do like Craig a lot as 007, it just didn't do it for me. Maybe even more shocking...I can't say I've ever seen anyone say this...is I like Quantum of Solace better! Yeah, yeah, I know. Now where I do fit into the social norm is in absolutely adoring Skyfall.

I think Black Panther is a highly overrated film. While I do like it, the praise it got was complete spin. No it's not astoundingly new. Nothing about it is! No Killmonger is not the best MCU villain. He's very far from. He's just "evil" Black Panther. People have complained for years about how so many of the Marvel villains are just antagonistic doppelganger versions of the protagonist, which is exactly what Killmonger is, but they praise him for it? So while, yes, I enjoyed it...I hate when people try to act like it's a groundbreaking film. The fact it was nominated for BEST PICTURE is a joke when infinitely superior and far more original superhero films were ignored. It really highlights the priorities of the Academy, how it's often not about the actual film-making. It's about politics and hip topical trends.

I think Venom is the most overplayed and overrated character Marvel has. Bring on the hate! =P

I still have not seen The Godfather...and don't have any interest to.

Donatello is my favorite Ninja Turtle.

I think The Dark Knight Returns is the most overrated Graphic Novel of all-time. Not that I dislike it, but best ever? Please! It doesn't even make my top 10 Batman books let alone top 20 graphic novels in general.

I love Super Mario Brothers II and never understood the hatred it gets. Sure it's different, I like that it's different. Sure it wasn't originally a Mario game, so what? It was a good game regardless, now with Mario.

This might not be that uncommon, it's basically a 50/50 if you asked strangers on the street, but considering this is a board dedicated to a sci-fi fantasy franchise...this might be controversial. I appreciate what it did for science-fiction, I understand it was a landmark franchise, I recognize how iconic it is...but I hate Star Trek. I just find it so, well, boring and bland. It's so technical. Not that I can't appreciate more cerebral stories, I absolutely can, but Trek just never captured my interest.

I think The Phantom Menace is the best prequel film. I know, I know, hear me out. Do I think it's a bad movie? Absolutely! But I find it far more enjoyable than II and III. Clones doesn't have much at all I enjoy, the romance is wooden, Boba Fett never needed an explored backstory, and I honestly never cared much for most the new designs. Sith is the crux of why this trilogy was even made; Anakin's fall to the dark-side. If that didn't work, the entire film would collapse. Well, for me, it didn't work. It was utterly botched, rushed, and frankly, made Anakin out to be a naive idiot who is easily manipulated. The Phantom Menace, for me, at least had a lot of good design work and fun (albeit mindless and superficial) scenes.

I absolutely hate Friends. It always struck me as such low-brow, safe, genetic, cookie-cutter soap-opera comedy. I will never understand its popularity status. I also hate Big Bang Theory!

I think Daredevil on Netflix is better than any MCU film. Not that I'm saying the MCU is remotely bad, but that DD is simply that good.

I utterly loathe Twitter right down to the very concept of it. I don't like being forced to a limited amount of characters.

Conceptually I think Stephen Kings The Shining has brilliant ideas in place, but...isn't very good. I much prefer the film...which means King would utterly hate me. =P

Outside of literally one song, I hate Johnny Cash.

I cannot stand live-action musicals. There's only one I enjoy, that being Labyrinth, and only because the puppetry and set design is so brilliant I can forgive the song numbers. Plus it's David Bowie! Otherwise, I'd rather put a nail gun to my forehead than sit through one.

I DON'T think Heath Ledger is the definitive Joker. I enjoyed him, but I'm far from thinking it was the second coming of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
9
Despite the good outweighing the bad, the lord of the rings movies get worse with each installment. I hate the way..well both ways they kill Sauramon...who in the books lives. And the army of the dead portrayed as scrubbing bubbles or a virus. And all of those movies are better than the Hobbit movies that follow...which are full of complete and utter bullcrap. Temple of doom is my favorite Indy movie...and agreed that Star Wars is the best movie in the original Trilogy. Oh and adding Boba Fett to anything does not make it instantly better.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
18
Despite the good outweighing the bad, the lord of the rings movies get worse with each installment. I hate the way..well both ways they kill Sauramon...who in the books lives. And the army of the dead portrayed as scrubbing bubbles or a virus.
I love the LOTR trilogy, even adore, but something odd happened to me. I think maybe even society was blinded to just the sheer excitement of those epic books finally being brought to life, because when I watch them now? I notice a lot more flaws than I originally did. Fellowship I still find near perfection...but that radioactive Galadriel scene?! What was THAT!? The Two Towers has this moment that is jarring to me. It's during the Dead Marshes, the part where Frodo falls into the water and sees the undead. They look like cheap masks bought at a Halloween pop-up store in October. I even noticed that the first time. WETA did some incredible effects, that's not one of them. I think the new interns worked on those. Hah! But by far, I'm with you entirely, the Army of the Dead were so misused. Their entire purpose is literally to do nothing but end the battle. Dues Ex Machina style! Jackson and co. wrote themselves to a stand still. How do we end the battle? That was their solution. Then there's the increasing absurdity of the Legolas tricks. He's aiming for a dark and moody (almost) period piece, almost treating it as if it was real history...but lost history. Then he throws in a complete Hollywood glamour moment like Legolas taking down the Oliphant and it completely takes you out of the seriousness. That is a trend that continued into The Hobbit films even, when now the Oliphant scene even seems subtle. What is he, the terminator mixed with Spider-Man? That's also in juxtaposition to Gimli, who increasingly is used as comedic relief as the series progresses. The truth is they are both infinitely better characters in Fellowship, far more grounded and serious. I think largely a lot of my issues stem from, well, I just don't think Peter Jackson is a very good director. I think he just struck gold here, but even some of his camera movements feel bizarre to me. Dutch angles and such. I think Rings is largely a masterpiece not for him but for the phenomenal cast, other writers, WETA, Howard Shore, concept designers (some of the best designs ever...I do not envy the people who had to make a tangible translation of Ents and somehow make it work...but by God they did it), and most especially Tolkien's story. Jackson hasn't made a good film since IMO.

I actually enjoyed a decent chunk of the first Hobbit film, but I totally noticed huge flaws. Riddles in the Dark was done phenomenally! The Goblin King scenes are, for me, borderline unwatchable though. Utterly full of cringe! Jackson clearly didn't want to be the one to make these and it shows. There's a REALLY interesting sort of behind the scenes tell-all documentary style youtube video a fan made that reveals some staggering making-of troubles and conflicts the series faced. She talked to cast members and all! The second one dialed up the cringe times ten. It has moments that are so utterly awful, like the theme-park water ride that the barrel ride turned into or the utterly pointless Smaug battle that serves no narrative purpose other than to just fill time. I do, however, think it has its moments...albeit minimally. Then you come to the third and honestly, outside of literally just the opening with Smaug attacking Laketown, I don't think I can draw any good out of it. It's that bad! What's even crazier? The Extended Editions aren't better like the LOTR extended, they're actually (shockingly) even worse. There are just so many questionable decisions in the franchise. The Hobbit is not Lord of the Rings, tonally they're entirely different. The Hobbit is more a fairy tale as opposed to a vast sweeping mythological epic. Jackson seemed so bipolar, one second he wants the whimsy and lightheartedness of the book and the next he wants a dark and serious Rings atmosphere. They clash! But even the whimsy went too far, it delves into cartoonish. Stick with one or the other! Then he seems so desperate to connect this to Rings in unnecessary ways. For example; The White Council, Radaghast, Sauron, Legolas, mentioning Strider and Gimli. Now truthfully, it's not 100% inaccurate in ways. Yes the White Council was dealing with the Necromancer who is Sauron. Yes Gandalf investigated Dol Guldor and was captured during the events of The Hobbit. That's true to the appendix. Just directly including it really roughed up the structure of the main story, but Jackson seemed so obsessed with "Remember THIS!?" Bilbo doesn't even seem like a major player by two and three. I wasn't even opposed to Legolas being in Mirkwood. The truth is, his character was created after The Hobbit was published. So retroactively, he probably would have been there had he existed as a character then. That makes sense to me. My issue is force-feeding him into the actual plot itself! Why does he have to be a character?! Cameo is fine, giant climactic and over the top battles...not so much. I was half expecting Jackson to give Smaugs death to Legolas. Seriously! Then there's the diversity angle. Now granted, not a single character is female in the book. I can fly with making a Mirkwood guard female, what is utterly tacked on is the totally inorganic Dawrf/Elf love story. You can so tell some suit at a board meeting said "There has to be romance, right? You can't have a movie without romance!" Actually, Lily is a huge Tolkien geek in real life and took the role only because she was promised they would NOT insert her character for romance. She felt duped and expressed it! I also get why they would make Bard more of a character...makes sense. It's just how it was done that I disliked. I mean there's just so much that's utterly awful in these films.

It's long but here's that video. It's in 3 parts, but if you really want a critical analysis and a peak inside the making of The Hobbit trilogy...the true making of and not the fluff stuff you see on the Blu-Ray official releases...it's a pretty interesting watch. It's also waaaaay worse than I knew. The production was a MESS! It even came down to a huge political snafu in New Zealand:

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRUQ-RKfUs

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPJr_tKkO4

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7t_g5QObs
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
9
When I was a kid i was an advanced reader and was bored by books like "the mouse and the motorcycle" by third grade. Through the RIF program's reps (is that program still even around?) who actually asked what I liked to read, allowed me to pick from the 6th grader table. In fact they walked me over and handed me "The Hobbit". That book was read and re-read, which was a foreign concept to me at the time! In all honesty the movie should have been one and done. I sat there through the first two films cringing. They made the Dwarves completely unacceptable! In fact My wife an I call the movies "The unacceptable Dwarves" trilogy. We completely passed on the 3rd film until we saw it on tv.They make caricatures out of fantastic literary characters that paved the way for the modern fantasy era. Legolas was purely a cash in. In all of the movies his deeds are supposed to come across as brash and mighty. Instead, they are cartoony and bring the film down. Whenever we see him slide sown the oliphant leg we always yell "Yabba dabba doo" its a scene literally lifted from the Flintstones. And after struggling theough the hobbit, his "Super Mario bros" bridge scene further cements the ridiculous movie version of the character. I felt so betrayed by Jackson and company for allowing the original source material to be bastardized for a nifty product launch. The merch sold like a buckets of feces, and it was not the cash cow they anticipated. It stems directly from the poorly planned and made films.
I agree with many of your LOTR gripes, and one thing stands out that every film maker should take note of... USE REAL FILM! LOTR was a monumental undertaking worthy of the acclaim when it came to just getting it on the screen. But it was doomed by this one flaw. When these films were made, nobody saw HD coming as a major concern. If you watch a vhs copy of Felloship or Towers, the effects meld well. Even the DVD versions hold up ok. But when you get to Blu Ray, things come undone. You can see the quality of the meshed effects fall apart. Anything CGI stands out in a way that was not meant to. Closer looks at some of the makeup and props do make them look cheap. A perfect example is the sweeping shot of Sauroman creating the uruk-hai at the tower. God forbid if you put the tv on 120hz with motion effects. Best Buy was showing this film in this format to sell tvs. Thats when i first noticed it. When these films are released in 4k or 8k they will need to be completely reworked. Digital filmography will only look good upscaled so much. Obviously these films were never meant to be viewed under such unforgiving circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
I think the Beatles are the most overrated band of all time. They are the original boy band.
Agreed. I've listened to their music and I wouldn't consider anything they've done as great. Heck, I still listen to The Monkees to this day. I haven't voluntarily listened to a Beatles song in nearly two decades.

A couple more, now that I've had time to think about the question:

Batman is the most overrated superhero ever created. Especially, when he's written as a super-genius, martial arts expert, who has a contingency plan for EVERY possible scenario, no matter how remote or implausible. This is why I consider the Adam West Batman to be my favorite version of the character. Because the 60s TV series took the ludicrousness of the character and played it up for comedy.

I love CGI as an art form and we haven't even scratched the surface of its possible applications. Most of what you see in the movies is not optimal because it's been farmed out to the lowest bidder and/or rushed by crushing deadlines. The full potential of CGI has not been realized and people will watch movies with thousands of computer-generated shots and not even realize that they are seeing a special effect. Then they will see one or two shots that aren't quite optimal and use that to claim that all CGI sucks.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,033
Reaction score
2
(who the **** is Drake?)

Kanye is a misunderstood genius..
LOL you silly Canadian. You know very well who Drake is. He’s the superrich kid whose mom owns a huge chunk of one of Toronto’s most affluent street, and his dad is well-connected to the biz, where little Drake spends his summer vacation with Quincy Jones when he’s not part of the Canadian kids institution DeGrassi High show. Then he decided to become a “rapper”.

Kanye really is a musical genius. What he has contributed to hip hop is profound and revolutionary: He can’t be praised enough for this. Obnoxious personality and marrying his alter ego aside, he brought hip hop to the place it is now.

(And I’ve never cared for nor watched any of the Indiana Jones /Back To The Future/ Ghostbusters movies.)
 
Last edited:

Daigo_Bah

Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2000
Messages
8,177
Reaction score
8
Thought of another: I love the Ewoks. Now, if I hadn't seen ROTJ at the age of 11 when it came out in the simpler times of 1983, I'd probably understand the dislike/hate by mostly contemporary critics. But I love all their visual variations, and I even have the 2 film DVD of their post-ROTJ adventures.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,585
Reaction score
3
Agreed. I've listened to their music and I wouldn't consider anything they've done as great. Heck, I still listen to The Monkees to this day. I haven't voluntarily listened to a Beatles song in nearly two decades.

A couple more, now that I've had time to think about the question:

Batman is the most overrated superhero ever created. Especially, when he's written as a super-genius, martial arts expert, who has a contingency plan for EVERY possible scenario, no matter how remote or implausible. This is why I consider the Adam West Batman to be my favorite version of the character. Because the 60s TV series took the ludicrousness of the character and played it up for comedy.
Oh good one!
I forgot about Batman. I totally agree.
I like my Super Heroes, well, SUPER.

Batman is just a rich spoiled brat with a bunch of expensive toys.
Toys he doesn't even create, he pays someone else to come up with the ideas and build them.

I hate Batman.

And I always thought Heath Ledger's performance of Joker wasn't great either.
The only reason he got so much praise for it was because he died before the movie came out.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
I have a lot of opinions about the Hulk, so here goes:

Because of the 2003 and 2008 films, a lot of people seem to think that Hulk is incapable of carrying his own movie and should be relegated to supporting character status, like he has been in the Avengers movies so far. However, I disagree. I think a standalone Hulk movie could work because it has never actually been tried. The two previous films weren't Hulk films, they were Bruce Banner films and they both had the exact same plot: Bruce Banner tries not to turn into the Hulk, then he gets into a situation that requires him to turn into the Hulk.

Nobody wants to pay $15 for a movie ticket to watch Bruce Banner get all angsty about how the Hulk is ruining his love life. So make the movie about the Hulk from beginning to end. Bruce Banner doesn't need anything more than a glorified cameo. If Mark Ruffalo wants more screen time because he's a big movie star, then replace him with a different actor. Edward Norton was a better Bruce Banner anyway, especially if we are talking about staying true to the comic book version of the character.

So far, the best onscreen version of the Hulk came out of Thor: Ragnarok, so Taika Waititi should definitely direct the standalone Hulk movie because he's the only director who seems to understand the character so far.

Also, the idea that the Hulk and Bruce Banner need to share the same face is something that was invented for the movies. That idea doesn't exist in the original comic stories. Nobody got confused in decades of Silver and Bronze Age comics, nobody got confused during the TV show when they had to cast two different actors for Banner and the Hulk, so audiences aren't going to get confused if they keep the same CG model for Hulk and simply recast Banner.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
469
Reaction score
3
And I always thought Heath Ledger's performance of Joker wasn't great either.
+1 on that. I preferred Jared Leto, and Caesar Romero.

I enjoyed the LOTR movies. However, I've never made it through any of the books, including "The Hobbit." I tried a few times over the years. I think I got through about twenty pages once. I can't tell you what it is that turned me off, but I never could get into them.

Lost. I hated it. I tried to watch it several times because of friends and coworkers who couldn't stop talking about it. I just didn't enjoy it. Same with X-Files.

Will Ferrell, Robin Williams and Jim Carrey. With very few exceptions, I can't stand anything these three have ever done. Actors playing the same obnoxious idiot in everything they ever do don't appeal to me.
 

Daigo_Bah

Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2000
Messages
8,177
Reaction score
8
First, a general thought: I usually break from the norm these days, by finding some merit in just about any film produced; I don't know if it's the social media world we live in, but seems like everybody fancies themselves a professional critic lately. I subscribe to the idea that if hundreds to thousands of people are involved in a film production, and that there is a team who has poured their love and hard work into a script, then it can't be terrible. There are degrees of quality, and there are things I like or dislike, but I don't think it's fair to call something bad because I don't like it. For example, I have no interest in contemporary teen comedies, but I recognize that they can be good, or well made despite that.

Now, for something specific: I loved Dark PhoeniX but apparently most people didn't! I hate to think Michael Fassbender or James McAvoy feel that the world hates their latest movie :p
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
9
I have a lot of opinions about the Hulk, so here goes:

Because of the 2003 and 2008 films, a lot of people seem to think that Hulk is incapable of carrying his own movie and should be relegated to supporting character status, like he has been in the Avengers movies so far. However, I disagree. I think a standalone Hulk movie could work because it has never actually been tried. The two previous films weren't Hulk films, they were Bruce Banner films and they both had the exact same plot: Bruce Banner tries not to turn into the Hulk, then he gets into a situation that requires him to turn into the Hulk.

Nobody wants to pay $15 for a movie ticket to watch Bruce Banner get all angsty about how the Hulk is ruining his love life. So make the movie about the Hulk from beginning to end. Bruce Banner doesn't need anything more than a glorified cameo. If Mark Ruffalo wants more screen time because he's a big movie star, then replace him with a different actor. Edward Norton was a better Bruce Banner anyway, especially if we are talking about staying true to the comic book version of the character.

So far, the best onscreen version of the Hulk came out of Thor: Ragnarok, so Taika Waititi should definitely direct the standalone Hulk movie because he's the only director who seems to understand the character so far.

Also, the idea that the Hulk and Bruce Banner need to share the same face is something that was invented for the movies. That idea doesn't exist in the original comic stories. Nobody got confused in decades of Silver and Bronze Age comics, nobody got confused during the TV show when they had to cast two different actors for Banner and the Hulk, so audiences aren't going to get confused if they keep the same CG model for Hulk and simply recast Banner.
I think the BEST stand alone Hulk film could be constructed from the Mr.Fix It run. all Hulk all clobber.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
5
I have a lot of opinions about the Hulk, so here goes:

Because of the 2003 and 2008 films, a lot of people seem to think that Hulk is incapable of carrying his own movie and should be relegated to supporting character status, like he has been in the Avengers movies so far. However, I disagree. I think a standalone Hulk movie could work because it has never actually been tried. The two previous films weren't Hulk films, they were Bruce Banner films and they both had the exact same plot: Bruce Banner tries not to turn into the Hulk, then he gets into a situation that requires him to turn into the Hulk.

Nobody wants to pay $15 for a movie ticket to watch Bruce Banner get all angsty about how the Hulk is ruining his love life. So make the movie about the Hulk from beginning to end. Bruce Banner doesn't need anything more than a glorified cameo. If Mark Ruffalo wants more screen time because he's a big movie star, then replace him with a different actor. Edward Norton was a better Bruce Banner anyway, especially if we are talking about staying true to the comic book version of the character.

So far, the best onscreen version of the Hulk came out of Thor: Ragnarok, so Taika Waititi should definitely direct the standalone Hulk movie because he's the only director who seems to understand the character so far.

Also, the idea that the Hulk and Bruce Banner need to share the same face is something that was invented for the movies. That idea doesn't exist in the original comic stories. Nobody got confused in decades of Silver and Bronze Age comics, nobody got confused during the TV show when they had to cast two different actors for Banner and the Hulk, so audiences aren't going to get confused if they keep the same CG model for Hulk and simply recast Banner.
Universal still holds the distribution rights to the Hulk. So even if Disney were to make a solo Hulk movie, Universal would distribute it and get a chunk of the profits. Disney can put Hulk in as many movies as they want but the minute they make a Hulk movie, Universal gets involved. That's why it hasn't happened since 2008. It's not because people think Hulk can't carry a movie on his own.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
I think the BEST stand alone Hulk film could be constructed from the Mr.Fix It run. all Hulk all clobber.
I think Ragnarok Hulk was almost perfect and easily the best onscreen realization of the character, so far. Maybe just a little bit smarter and he'd be on the same intelligence level as the Silver Age Hulk. Grey Hulk only lasted for one issue in the 60s. However, a Hulk who could speak, read, formulate plans, maintain a secret identity (while still in Hulk form), outsmart alien invaders, and had full grasp of personal pronouns, lasted for much longer during that era.

Universal still holds the distribution rights to the Hulk. So even if Disney were to make a solo Hulk movie, Universal would distribute it and get a chunk of the profits. Disney can put Hulk in as many movies as they want but the minute they make a Hulk movie, Universal gets involved. That's why it hasn't happened since 2008. It's not because people think Hulk can't carry a movie on his own.
I'm fully aware of the situation with Universal. However, it's weird that Disney doesn't seem to have a problem sharing profits with Sony for the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies. So, why would the Hulk be different? Unless they think that he isn't capable of carrying his own movie.

Another movie opinion of mine that strays from the norm: I actually liked Independence Day: Resurgence (for the most part) and was excited to see the direction the story was going at the end of the film. It's just too bad that series is likely dead in the water right now.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
18
I will def. agree that Ragnarok Hulk is the best on screen Hulk. I'm not so sure I want a solo hulk though, but I think I can be convinced. I can dig the Joe Fixit idea.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
5
I think Ragnarok Hulk was almost perfect and easily the best onscreen realization of the character, so far. Maybe just a little bit smarter and he'd be on the same intelligence level as the Silver Age Hulk. Grey Hulk only lasted for one issue in the 60s. However, a Hulk who could speak, read, formulate plans, maintain a secret identity (while still in Hulk form), outsmart alien invaders, and had full grasp of personal pronouns, lasted for much longer during that era.



I'm fully aware of the situation with Universal. However, it's weird that Disney doesn't seem to have a problem sharing profits with Sony for the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies. So, why would the Hulk be different? Unless they think that he isn't capable of carrying his own movie.

Another movie opinion of mine that strays from the norm: I actually liked Independence Day: Resurgence (for the most part) and was excited to see the direction the story was going at the end of the film. It's just too bad that series is likely dead in the water right now.
Disney had ZERO access to Spider-man without the Sony deal. No Sony deal, no Spider-man in the MCU. That's much different than the Hulk/Universal situation. They have to share profits to use Spider-man at all. They can use Hulk as much as they want in other movies, so why would they share profits when they don't really have to? Also, the Spider-man films are produced by Sony. Disney would wind up financing a Hulk movie on their own and THEN sharing the profits with Universal due to the distribution deal.

The situations are actually quite different.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
Disney had ZERO access to Spider-man without the Sony deal. No Sony deal, no Spider-man in the MCU. That's much different than the Hulk/Universal situation. They have to share profits to use Spider-man at all. They can use Hulk as much as they want in other movies, so why would they share profits when they don't really have to? Also, the Spider-man films are produced by Sony. Disney would wind up financing a Hulk movie on their own and THEN sharing the profits with Universal due to the distribution deal.

The situations are actually quite different.
You make a good point. Obviously the details of the license with each movie studio are going to be different. I do know that Sony was required to make a Spider-Man movie every few years or they would forfeit the license (which is why Spider-man will continue to get rebooted over and over again, long after they have moved on from Tom Holland's version of the character). Clearly that wasn't a requirement for Universal to retain ownership of Hulk, since they would have lost the rights by now.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
18
I will say, I ALWAYS wondered what happened with Sterns in the first MCU Hulk movie. He very clearly is transformed into The Leader, perhaps Hulks main villain (at least one of), but he's just entirely brushed off and been forgotten. If they did do another solo Hulk flick, I'd say answer that question. I mean after all these years, they finally established what happened to Red Skull and are introducing the REAL Mandarin. So I do think it IS possible.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
I will say, I ALWAYS wondered what happened with Sterns in the first MCU Hulk movie. He very clearly is transformed into The Leader, perhaps Hulks main villain (at least one of), but he's just entirely brushed off and been forgotten. If they did do another solo Hulk flick, I'd say answer that question. I mean after all these years, they finally established what happened to Red Skull and are introducing the REAL Mandarin. So I do think it IS possible.
I actually liked The Incredible Hulk for the most part. If they were to replace that terrible Hulk CGI with the Ragnarok Hulk CG-model, then I think it would greatly improve the film. The only thing I really hated about that film was Tim Roth's character. For someone who was supposed to be an elite Special Forces soldier, the guy walked around without the slightest hint of military bearing and seeing him unshaven wearing the formal, Class-A uniform was the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard for me. But I could overlook all that for a remastered film with some upgraded CGI.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
2,218
Reaction score
5
I actually liked The Incredible Hulk for the most part. If they were to replace that terrible Hulk CGI with the Ragnarok Hulk CG-model, then I think it would greatly improve the film. The only thing I really hated about that film was Tim Roth's character. For someone who was supposed to be an elite Special Forces soldier, the guy walked around without the slightest hint of military bearing and seeing him unshaven wearing the formal, Class-A uniform was the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard for me. But I could overlook all that for a remastered film with some upgraded CGI.
Aren't U.S. special ops soldiers allowed to wear their hair longer, have beards, etc. so they blend in more and don't immediately stand out as being military. Also, Blonksy's actually a Russian-born British military officer who's been loaned out to Ross, so who's to say what rules he has to follow.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
Aren't U.S. special ops soldiers allowed to wear their hair longer, have beards, etc. so they blend in more and don't immediately stand out as being military. Also, Blonksy's actually a Russian-born British military officer who's been loaned out to Ross, so who's to say what rules he has to follow.
They are allowed to wear their hair longer and have beards while they are in the field, not while they are in garrison wearing the Class A uniform. The US Army Class A uniform, to be specific. Not a Russian or British uniform. You can't just wear a military uniform, along with all the decorations and medals, from another country if you don't belong to that country's military. Also, just his overall posture and the way he walked showed no signs of military bearing.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
Here's another one: I've never understood the appeal of The Beastie Boys. I've listened to their music and I just don't get it.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
18
Here's another one: I've never understood the appeal of The Beastie Boys. I've listened to their music and I just don't get it.
I never cared for them either, but with music...it's SO subjective. People swear by genres like country, rap, and opera...whereas I'd rather gouge my eardrums out with a fork.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2017
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
9
Beastie Boys are one of those things you either get or you dont. Being a NYer, and having a complete view of their career they are a fascinating group. They started out as a punk rock band.Then dove into a rap community that readily accepted them.They stole samples for their second album resulting an the most lawsuits ever generated by one album, lawsuits that continue to this day. They re emerged in the early 90s fusing their punk rock and rap personas in a time when many genres of music were readily accepted. It's easy to dismiss them if you only look at one portion of their career. Some of the stuff they did was groundbreaking and provoked a lot of tjought. They brought a lot of awareness to the crisis in Tibet, and were even more socially consious in their own communities.they started out as a degenerate group all about booze,drugs, and mischief...but ultimately left the world a better place than they found it. Like i said if you were into them enough to hear what was between the lines you got the most out of them. If you were a casual observer, they are easy to dismiss.They were a huge part of NY music culture.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
18
I actually liked The Incredible Hulk for the most part. If they were to replace that terrible Hulk CGI with the Ragnarok Hulk CG-model, then I think it would greatly improve the film. The only thing I really hated about that film was Tim Roth's character. For someone who was supposed to be an elite Special Forces soldier, the guy walked around without the slightest hint of military bearing and seeing him unshaven wearing the formal, Class-A uniform was the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard for me. But I could overlook all that for a remastered film with some upgraded CGI.
I enjoyed it for what it is, but I will say I never really felt an urge to re-see it. It was made in that sort of prototype era of Marvel films, basically just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. While it's not a BAD film, by any means, I will say it's a particularly forgettable film IMO. It's just...average. It's a nice two-hour distraction, but nothing more. It feels like Marvel is slightly embarrassed by it, maybe just because of the loss of Norton. But they really just abandoned a lot. Betty is nowhere to be found in the MCU again, Sterns very clearly transforming into the Leader (setting up a sequel) is totally never used again, I'm just glad they did re-introduce General Ross.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
0
I don't know if my things will match the topic directly, but it got me thinking and they are what I came up with.

I have never really been a 'go to the movies' as a form of entertainment kind of guy. Out of college, when my friends and I all moved back home, we'd get together on weekends. When you go out Friday night, Saturday can be a lull until going out Saturday night. Several guys were very much movie guys, others more of going along with it. But I used to hate it. If I was doing something I'd rather go shoot pool somewhere, or just hang out and play music and chill and catch up on things. I didn't see these guys as much as I used to. I didn't want to spend two hours together but not talking. I used to say I view a movie as two hours of wasted time.

For some time now, home viewing quality has surpassed the movie going experience, so that doesn't make it any more desirable. In general, I would only go to see a movie that I specifically wanted to see. I don't see going to a movie as a form of entertainment that I like to engage in, the experience itself. I do happen to watch movies, but I much prefer doing so at home, where I can maximize my time and the experience. So, I think I go against the grain with the movie going experience. I haven't run into many people who are as against it as I am.

With that as a mindset, most pop culture movies or just the most popular movies year in and year out, I've never seen. Again, I have very little curiosity for a movie that I know very little about, or seems not to match any of my interests. It had to be pretty good for me to cough up the two hours.

So when I did finally see the first three Indiana Jones movies, I was let down. I don't mean that I thought they were bad. I mean that by that time, they were such an icon in pop culture, almost as beloved as Star Wars, and I felt there wasn't anything special at all to them. That they might have been good movies, but I couldn't understand why they were so highly thought of. And my only thought is that they are very middle of the road, in terms of how spectacular the concepts and dialog and plot and effects were. They didn't have the wow factor of SW, or Terminator 2, that really took hold as something next level. That they hit that pocket of the casual movie goer who may not have been very into sci-fi or action movies or stunts, that don't seek the extreme in those areas.

The character Indiana Jones was bland to me. He by no means left an impression like Ford did as Han Solo, or Sean Connery or Roger Moore did as James Bond. In fact I saw the third movie first, and liked Connery the most as an actor, the character he portrayed/delivered.

So those movies leave me thinking they are way overrated and I don't understand why. Actually, the religious aspects of searching for the Grail, passing the tests, and the Knight protecting it, those moments touched something in me. I guess I like that one. Bumping into Hitler, getting his autograph. Throwing a guy out the zeppelin window, saying 'no ticket.' I find that whimsical, not knock me down funny. It is neutral and reserved with its elements, not over the top. My guess is that this appeals to a wide audience. But it doesn't develop tremendous fanhood in me, and like I said, I am surprised that it does in others. Nothing wrong with them, just don't think the fanhood hype matches them.

And this is a bit of a stray from the topic, and I don't mention it to drag it in as an attempt to overtake the topic. But I stayed with the EU when Disney cast it as Legends. I don't read the new comics or novels, haven't seen the movies. It has been long enough that I think the holiday season last fall or winter, I did see maybe ten minutes of one of them, enough to see Kylo Ren on screen, as well as Rey, maybe Han and Finn at some point. Not because I wanted to, but in flipping channels, there it was, so I stopped for a few minutes. I thought Kylo had the stupidest voice, it belonged in a droid. I should probably strike that part, as someone may defend it and I'm not here to start a war. I will say in general that none of the things I've heard mentioned, none of the conversations here, nothing has sounded the least bit interesting to me. None of it sounded better than the EU I was already heavily invested in, content wise.

I am probably one of the biggest SW fans who has absolutely nothing to do with its current position in pop culture. I follow OT/EU/PT Hasbro figures, but other than that, all of the SW doings in pop culture are going on without me. It is weird for someone to find out you are a huge fan but anti everything currently going on. So while seemingly everybody who posts on the site here is following current SW, I feel like I am wandering the halls looking for my class and I can't find it. Because there is very little current conversation that I can be a part of. However, I don't feel like I am missing out because I an not interested with what has been available. I would feel like I am missing out on what isn't being made that I would prefer, but I have a large enough collection of pre Disney SW and EU to keep me satisfied. So I am not disgruntled, I don't create old canon new canon arguments. But I think it is unusual and against the grain, that I am a big SW fan, but not its current incarnation, which happens to have exploded in pop culture.

I have seen the first Iron Man twice, and some of one of the Avengers movies when it was on regular TV last year (some battle in a city with like an undulating flying snake alien that they were fighting, and I think the scene where the Hulk slammed Loki all over like a rag doll). But I haven't seen any of the other movies, and have no real interest in doing so.

Much of these pop culture movie franchises have come about after my interests had peaked in them. I was interest in the Raimi Spidey trilogy, and the first three X-Men movies. Nothing really after, though recently I have caught up on some. Last night with Wolverine Origin, and a week ago Days of Future Past. I liked Days, and Origin was all right but didn't feel as good as the others. I did get to see Deadpool 2 and while some parts I didn't really care for, on a whole I liked that a lot. And this past week I saw the first Deadpool, and I'd say I liked that, but it was a bit of a letdown. There were certain elements that repeated in 2, and since I saw them in 2 first, they were more original there. In the first it felt like that joke again? Of course, someone watching them in order might have the same opinion the other way around.

So I have recently been catching up with the X-universe of movies, but don't really see myself doing so with the Avenger universe. Or with any Spidey universe, having no interest past the Raimi movies.

Though the topics in general don't interest me much any more, I am more inclined to reading a good story than wanting to see the movie, and that hasn't really changed in me. There's also something about how fantastic CGI has become, that the element of 'there are no limits to the action we can show' has pushed a lot of things out of the plausible realm of possibility with me. Smaller scale stunts seem more real, and it is more easy to suspend disbelief and think a superhero could pull that off. Or even a regular person.

And all of this might actually lead into the idea that I am a huge SW fan, but only specific elements (as I explained), and I am not really a pop culture nerd as many people seem to be today. I like SW, I used to like Marvel comics in the 80's and have some lingering interests, I like the original series of Star Trek, but I don't go for any and all sci-fi or pop culture fandom. Just like I am not a 'movie going' guy, that I like specific movies. I am also not a pop culture guy, I like certain elements that may have a place in pop culture. To me, nerd and geek are still negative terms, and I am not one. And I think a lot of people feel part of a bigger pop culture and embrace more elements of it, than I do. I like my subsections and have very little interest in other subsections. I could be wrong, but I think I am in a minority on that general outlook, and that seems to fit with the concept of this posted topic.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
2,984
Reaction score
3
I might as well weigh in on this... beats working.

GoT was amazing from start to finish. I wonder if there was a difference between those that watched it week to week and those that binge watched after it had come out entirely because I felt season 8, while certainly more abruptly wrapped up than everyone would have liked, played out almost as expected. I did not understand the hatred.

I'm basically a sucker for all the pop culture stuff when it comes to TV or movies, but not a fan of Star Trek. LOVED Farscape!!! << Like too much love really. Loved all the Marvel MCU movies but Black Panther would not be high up my list... the CGI battle at the end is cringeworthy. LOTR was an amazing achievement. The Hobbit was a travesty. The movies were not the book 'The Hobbit'... they were based on the book, but just so far over the top. They weren't even as good as the Rankin/Bass cartoon. (Still haunted by Gollums screams "We hates it foreeeeever"

I'm surprised at the lack of Beatles love because I rarely share the sentiment that I too am not a big fan. They have a lot of songs and I can enjoy their lyrics and all, but would never listen to them willingly. My musical tastes are all over the map though. I listen to everything from Alison Krause to Rob Zombie so it just depends on the day and the mood I guess.

I would add one thing to this discussion and that is alcohol. I don't get it. I understand that people go out and have a few drinks socially. I understand that bars have things like live music, pool tables, etc. I understand that there is a whole culture around craft beers and as a hobby I can understand making or experiencing this... I am fond of new experiences. I just don't understand alcohol in general. I've never needed it to have a good time. I don't need it to enhance my personality. I don't find it fun hanging out with people that are even slightly impaired. Plus, it's expensive.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
10,871
Reaction score
2
I am probably one of the biggest SW fans who has absolutely nothing to do with its current position in pop culture. I follow OT/EU/PT Hasbro figures, but other than that, all of the SW doings in pop culture are going on without me. It is weird for someone to find out you are a huge fan but anti everything currently going on. So while seemingly everybody who posts on the site here is following current SW, I feel like I am wandering the halls looking for my class and I can't find it. Because there is very little current conversation that I can be a part of. However, I don't feel like I am missing out because I an not interested with what has been available. I would feel like I am missing out on what isn't being made that I would prefer, but I have a large enough collection of pre Disney SW and EU to keep me satisfied. So I am not disgruntled, I don't create old canon new canon arguments. But I think it is unusual and against the grain, that I am a big SW fan, but not its current incarnation, which happens to have exploded in pop culture.
I can totally relate to this. However, I'm becoming more and more of an OT-purist the older I get. I'm willing to give an honorable mention to Rogue One (but it's just a glorified fan film, not a real Star Wars movie) and I do have some interest in the upcoming The Mandalorian streaming show. However, I will never place any Star Wars movie, TV show, comic book, or novel on the same level as the Original Trilogy.

Also, I tend to see Star Wars as a toy property first and a film series second. Obviously the films came first, but it's almost impossible to deny that toy sales were being factored into the films' designs and plots since ROTJ (maybe even going all the way back to ESB, since the entire Hoth Battle seemed specifically designed to sell toys). This is why I can still collect toys from a Star Wars movie I don't like. For example, I saw Solo twice and wasn't impressed with it either time, but I still like the design of the Mimban Stormtrooper enough that I have purchased every version of that trooper released so far.

I would add one thing to this discussion and that is alcohol. I don't get it. I understand that people go out and have a few drinks socially. I understand that bars have things like live music, pool tables, etc. I understand that there is a whole culture around craft beers and as a hobby I can understand making or experiencing this... I am fond of new experiences. I just don't understand alcohol in general. I've never needed it to have a good time. I don't need it to enhance my personality. I don't find it fun hanging out with people that are even slightly impaired. Plus, it's expensive.
I've never been much of a drinker either. There have been times in the past where I would drink a lot (mostly when I was in the Army), but it always felt so empty and I have never been able to understand why people think they need alcohol to "have a good time". Alcohol is a depressant, so drinking it is actually counter productive if having a good time is your goal. Plus, I'm a sleepy drunk. So drinking too much acts like a sleeping pill for me.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
4,126
Reaction score
3
I quit a book and a half into the ASOIAF series. I've never felt more bored and disinterested while reading a book, and I choked down almost all of Atlas Shrugged. I loved the show, for the most part but the books I tried to force myself to read were just a painful slog.

Also, if I hear that a video game requires me to play online, it's basically a guarantee I'll NEVER play it. And if a single player game has NO cheat codes? Also probably won't play it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
2,984
Reaction score
3
And this is a bit of a stray from the topic, and I don't mention it to drag it in as an attempt to overtake the topic. But I stayed with the EU when Disney cast it as Legends. I don't read the new comics or novels, haven't seen the movies. It has been long enough that I think the holiday season last fall or winter, I did see maybe ten minutes of one of them, enough to see Kylo Ren on screen, as well as Rey, maybe Han and Finn at some point. Not because I wanted to, but in flipping channels, there it was, so I stopped for a few minutes. I thought Kylo had the stupidest voice, it belonged in a droid. I should probably strike that part, as someone may defend it and I'm not here to start a war. I will say in general that none of the things I've heard mentioned, none of the conversations here, nothing has sounded the least bit interesting to me. None of it sounded better than the EU I was already heavily invested in, content wise.

I am probably one of the biggest SW fans who has absolutely nothing to do with its current position in pop culture. I follow OT/EU/PT Hasbro figures, but other than that, all of the SW doings in pop culture are going on without me. It is weird for someone to find out you are a huge fan but anti everything currently going on. So while seemingly everybody who posts on the site here is following current SW, I feel like I am wandering the halls looking for my class and I can't find it. Because there is very little current conversation that I can be a part of. However, I don't feel like I am missing out because I an not interested with what has been available. I would feel like I am missing out on what isn't being made that I would prefer, but I have a large enough collection of pre Disney SW and EU to keep me satisfied. So I am not disgruntled, I don't create old canon new canon arguments. But I think it is unusual and against the grain, that I am a big SW fan, but not its current incarnation, which happens to have exploded in pop culture.
I apologize for cutting your response, but I wanted to focus on the EU part that you and I have discussed in the past. I do not think you are in the minority with your interest in pre-Disney Star Wars and EU. I've actually talked to several people that feel exactly the same way, but I think many that read the EU just don't spend their time on message boards talking about it for whatever reason.

I can still pull parts out of the ST that I enjoy. I just can't really watch all of it and honestly haven't read anything that has been written in the new Disney 'canon'. Rogue One is a great prequel to Star Wars and I felt Solo was just fun if you can get past the fact that Han is probably the least interesting part of the story.

I've made my peace with the EU and am still reading stuff from that era when I get a moment. Currently the Lando Trilogy... it's not great, but it's familiar and I tend to see both Billy Dee and Donald Glover when I'm reading.

The recent commitment to ROTJ with the barge, playset and figures has been nice and I just hope they can continue that sort of love for the OT somehow. There is scant little left that I need in terms of figures but I'll always buy new characters from the OT or quality upgrades like the new Yakface.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
1,453
Reaction score
0
I do not think you are in the minority with your interest in pre-Disney Star Wars and EU. I've actually talked to several people that feel exactly the same way, but I think many that read the EU just don't spend their time on message boards talking about it for whatever reason.
I came to RS late in terms of the existence of the EU. A lot had already been out and discussed before I had joined. But for a few years, I really enjoyed discussing things. Even things that had been out already, new readers were asking about suggestions, so things were current again. As soon as the word was out about the change, all those conversations dried up. I missed such discussions, but it is what it is. I don't quite understand, if you like something, why not talk about it, even once in a while? I guess more people live in the present, or at least, present incarnations of past properties, than actually reliving those past properties. It's a mindset that is very foreign to me. I can always relive old memories, as well as discover new interests, when re-reading older books or re-watching older movies.

I am another who doesn't think the Beatles are the greatest thing ever. The same with Jimmie Hendrix. I think these two, what they did may have been significant in the time that they were doing it, but for me, I didn't hear them with that perspective. I couldn't experience the divergence from the norm, that their creativity possessed. It's been a number of years, but I did buy a Beatles #1 hits CD when it came out. But I don't think I've played it more than three times, and I think that is a couple decades old. I'm just not interested in their pop like peppiness. I can say this or that song sounds nice, but I have no desire to hear it. I think a few Hendrix songs are good, not great. To my ear, what movie was it, White Men Can't Jump? Wesley Snipes telling Woody Harrelson he can't hear Jimmie? I guess I can't hear Jimmie. I think his trademark is screechy and just electronic noise. Some creative expressions of it in a few songs, but in general, not pleasing to the ear at all.

Now I love Frank Zappa, and you could say his guitar soloing also has a freestyling distortion element to it. But I can absolutely listen to Zappa do it all day, but with Hendrix, it is annoying. With Hendrix it seems like distortion for the sake of doing it, but with Zappa, he's still composing and going somewhere with it. Not only is there a flow to it, but it is pleasing to hear.
 
Top