Quote:
Originally Posted by Coola Yagami
They also missed the Channing Tatum joke, it went right over their heads. It's not that April would be 'arrested for fantasizing about someone that doesn't exist', it's the fact that back when the movie was made Channing Tatum was like 10 or 12, so April would go to jail for openly admitting she fantasized about a kid. Geez you people, think a little.
|
It was also about the absurdity that people almost expect a movie from the past to be a movie of today. I have seen contemporary movies where girls mention Channing Tatum in the same way. What will Channing Tatum look like in 20 to 30 years? Part of me thinks that teens and twenty-somethings at that point will be like "Channing who?"Or "Oooo, he's so old!"
A lot of movies that are quoted as being timeless are still very much of their time. The original, classic Die Hard is an example. It has a Run DMC song. It's clearly set in the yuppie/Reagan era. Women have that puffy, big, curly hairstyle. The villain mentions John Waye and John McClain gets his catchphrase from Roy Rogers. (Note: I don't use these examples as criticisms, but as fact.)
The same will be said of movies of today. The question is, is it wrong for a movie to be of its time or is an audience wrong for being closed minded towards movies being dated? Personally, I lean towards the latter.
Then again, movies are my main passion and my focus in life, a craft I am studying. I take films seriously. The first film isn't for me just a part of a franchise I love but my very link to it. It's the main reason why I am here, whereas for others it may be the comics or the animated series.