>How can a studio greenlight something like Emoji Movie or

i might be wrong but i don't think space jam fanboys are whining about the emoji movie

>>88510091
We had a Space Jam thread the other day where people were saying the people was unironically still a fun Looney Tunes movie while we have both Sing and Emoji Movie threads that has everyone calling it shit.

It's just some dumb entertainment for kids, calm the fuck down

Space Jam was bad.

There was some value in the animation, but that's about it.

it was cashing on popularity of basketball.

>>88511006
I agree. I can't count the number of times I've seen people get excited to watch Space Jam when it's on TV or something, only to be extremely disappointed while watching it, then claim it was great later, only to get disappointed when watching it again, and so on. I think it's almost entirely nostalgia-fuel at this point.

If you legitimately like it that's fine too, but I've noticed even people that like it very rarely talk about the live action bits without the Looney Tunes characters, which a large chunk of the movie was composed of. Honestly I rarely even see people talk about the movie outside of the climax.

>>88510102
What makes you think people from thread A were also in thread B and thread C?

>>88510085
Was Space Jam always terrible to /co/ or is it a recent forced meme to try and combat all the 'nineties animation compared to todays animation' threads.

Because I fucking loved Space Jam, watched it at least 6 times.

>>88511070
>I've noticed even people that like it very rarely talk about the live action bits without the Looney Tunes characters
Gee, it's almost like the Looney Tunes are the star attraction.

>>88510085
Looney Tunes by themselves were already good, so if nothing else, you'd know those parts would be good. Nothing about emojis is good.

>>88511763
It's just a bit dated. The cgi is horrible, and Michaels actual acting is debatable. I'll be honest, while its not better put together like Back in Action, story wise it's much better. Back in Action was just all over the place, and Danny Devito was a better villain than Steve Martin.

>>88510085
say what you want but the looney toons and basketball/NBA are more culturally relevant than some furry american idol movie and a wreck ralph ripoff with emojiis.

>>88511767
My point is that it's hard to call a film good or even great as many people do, while simultaneously ignoring a very large part of said film. It's not like such scenes are a rarity, they're probably ~ a quarter to a third of the film in its entirety.

>>88511767
>Looney Tunes are the star attraction
No, Jordan was the star attraction you mongoloid. The fucking movie is literally a fictional account of what went on between him retiring from the NBA and then making his big comeback a few years later.

Of course you'd have to have actually seen the movie you're talking about to know that ...

>>88511006
>Space Jam was bad
This is known:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/space_jam/

>>88511882
>It's just a bit dated
No, it's just bad. Roger Rabbit is considerably older (and very 80s) live action/animation mix and yet:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/who_framed_roger_rabbit/

File: 1463843000450.jpg (40KB, 498x668px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 498x668px

>>88512107

>Rotten tomatoes
Opinion discarded

The only people who liked Space Jam are the urban market and furries who fapped to Lola Bunny.

>>88512440
i like it cuz my husbando looks cute in it

>>88510085
Space Jam
>uses classic characters that are known the world over for 60 years and Michael Jordan who's still considered a living legend
Emojis
>a flash in the pan fad that'll die out and are pretty much dead
Sing
>a cash in on Zootopia using modern songs that'll be forgotten in a few months

>>88512060
Nice bait.

>>88510102
that doesn't mean they're the same people.

>>88510119
also this.

>>88510085
Space Jam was a combination of popular things at the time. Loony Toons and Michael Jordan.


Sing is kinda cashing in on the zootopia hype. lots of movies have done that sort of thing when something in a genre does very well. It'll be forgotten in a few months.

the emoji movie...that's something with very little hope for it. Emoji's are popular but for different reasons.

>>88510102
that doesn't mean they're the same people.

>>88510119
also this.

>>88512859
That's some powerful nostalgia to justify your shit movie there, anon.

>>88512107
I never really got into Roger Rabbit. Honestly seems like the entire live action/animation genre is sort of a wash.

Maybe one day someone will be able to combine both in such a way that will suit my tastes.

>>88510102

>Sing is kinda cashing in on the zootopia hype.

Sorry, but there's just no way sing was developed and slated for release in the time between Zootopia's release and it's huge success. Sing was likely being developed long before the people working on it even knew about Zootopia, let alone the level of "hype" it would generate.

>>88511070
>If you legitimately like it that's fine too, but I've noticed even people that like it very rarely talk about the live action bits without the Looney Tunes characters, which a large chunk of the movie was composed of.
Really? The scenes with Bill Murray and Wayne Knight were my favorite parts as a kid. That and the Basketball Jones montage.

>>88517110
>The project was announced in August 2013 at that year’s D23 Expo.[37]

>In January 2014, it was announced that Garth Jennings would write and direct an animated comedy film for Universal Pictures and Illumination Entertainment about "courage, competition and carrying a tune,"[12] which was originally titled Lunch,[13] and then retitled as Sing.[5]
I dunno man, it seems to me like Illumination were just keeping tabs on the competition. "A CGI Disney movie will be a huge success and kids will want more like it" is a pretty fuckin' safe bet. They're probably still kicking themselves for not doing a video game-based movie the year Wreck-It Ralph came out.

But no one liked the actual movie, the only reason anyone cares about it is because the theme is catchy as fuck.

It's the nostalgia cycle which is 20 years.

Around 2010, we first saw Buzzfeed and Facebook splurge with articles and maymays about "omg, remember the 90s guys. Member tamagotchi?" Now, we're almost in 2017, starting to come down the hill of that.

In three years, we'll see people getting nostalgic for George W. Bush, Hawthorne heights, and AOL Instant Messenger.

>>88510085
My body is ready anon

>>88518094
Wait? Sing is by Garth Jennings? Dang I had much higher hopes for this guy

Though maybe he's doing what he's always done: doing way more than one would've expected but still nowhere near enough to be great.

>>88518874
The nostalgia cycle has spent an inordinate amount of time focusing on the 80s while having incredibly mixed to hostile feelings about the 90s. Meanwhile people who weren't even alive in the 80s are still treating it like it's one of the greatest decades in living memory. I feel like it may have been broken for good but not for the better. I can't predict where it will lead next but I don't look forward to it at all.

>>88523419
The 80s in terms of animation was fucking great though.