sonar1313 wrote:They also will not see or enjoy the movie (in the theater) without paying for a ticket, but the experience of doing so is not why they go either.
If you make the movie free people will enjoy it. If you remove the bad things, people won't enjoy the movie, no matter what other things you change.
You're entirely welcome to experience and enjoy all those emotions, but I venture to say you're nearly alone in the world if you also don't experience a surge of satisfaction every time a bad guy gets whacked, or feel some admiration at the father's sheer guts and love for his daughter. And on the occasions you've read or heard someone talking about liking that movie, I venture to say it is not in the context of how callous the villains were.
Let me back up a little bit, because I think we may I gotten to talking past each other, and maybe I can communicate better.
I am analyzing
things very differently from you. I doubt either of our actual emotions are all the special or different. While I'm watching the movie I want the characters happy, justice, and all those good things. After the movie, when I'm considering what made that a satisfying fiction, I look at things very differently. First of all I try to avoid any assumptions that the things I wanted within the context of the movie actually made it a good movie.
I do this because I find it to be more consistent. I seen with a hero beating interesting bad guys is satisfying, a hero beating up boring bad guys isn't, interesting bad guys screwed up by natural circumstance is.
Groucho Marx wrote:I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
The posits a failure on all clubs to properly judge Groucho, or a failure of Groucho's character that he is aware of, but does not correct.
Hedberg wrote:I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.
This is deliberately communicating poorly. (in fact this is technically a contradiction, as the perfect aspect explicitly indicates the action is no longer occurring).
Hedberg wrote:I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
A thought out anti-picketing position would include thoughts on appropriate ways of disagreement, or the idea that one should refrain from doing so. Holding this position and still desiring to picket is hypocritical.
Zootopia wrote:I may be just a dumb bunny, but we are good at multiplying.
There is no reason to presume rabbit's abilities to procreate indicate an ability to do arithmetic. The two definitions of "multiplying" are being deliberately misused by the authors (but not by the characters, since in apparently works that way in universe).
sonar1313 wrote:It's kind of a stretch at best to say the dog quote relies on stupidity for its humor. It relies, like a great deal of comedy and most one-liner comedy in particular, on the unexpected, which is in no way required to be stupid. Nor, for example, do you need to believe either the Amish or Gangsta's Paradise are stupid to find the humor in a song about the former to the tune of the latter.
The dog joke is unexpected for good reason. Our minds (below the level of conscious though) consider the meaning of "outside a dog" and discard the most literal definition as being useless.
Amish Paradise is, as a whole, clever. Many funny things actually are clever. Their parts of cleverly chosen and structured in a clever way. Within context of building a joke, the pieces are clever.
Without that context, at least one of the pieces will be stupid. With some of the great humorists, they find stupidity that everyone does, or educated people do, or that typical people can't articulate why something is wrong, even when they know it is. But still, the process of appreciating the humor relies on the audience seeing something wrong.
Archgeek wrote:Yeah, kids can be terrible to each other, and bullying happens, but the swiftness which the kids fell to such extremes and the depths of idiocy they displayed seemed nearly alien, and like some sort of weird attack on a child's mindset.
I agree that it's unrealistic, and exaggerated, but the kids were doing what they were trained to do. At that time, bullying wasn't something boy's schools failed to remove, but something they encouraged. If you read biographies in that same situation, they seem almost as alien.