Why do people pretend to like this mediocre movie?

Why do people pretend to like this mediocre movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2004-sexual-behavior-in-pre-contact-hawaii.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because it's pretty good

Yeah this. I thought it was going to be super bland except for the visuals but it was pretty fun.

Why does anyone pretend to like garbage that caters to women? To get laid.

>caters to women

I thought it was made for children

It is, but women by and large enjoy children's media.

I liked it

Not much difference

Why do you pretend to be able to speak for other people? Ah yes, that's right, it's the shitposter way.

Women are emotionally children, so the demographics have huge overlap in terms of what they enjoy.

What's mediocre about it?
>Great songs
>Incredible visuals
>Good characters with actual flaws
>No forced love interest trash
>Retarded chicken is actually funny

The only 'mediocre' thing I can think of is that the story structure isn't much different than past Disney films. But why does that even matter if it's executed well?

One thing I didn't like is how it's presented as just a disconnected series of setpieces once she leaves home.

>leave home
>arrive at the Maui island to get Maui
>set sail with Maui

>cut to encounter with coconut savage creatures that have no explanation, no backstory, and no context for their existence or motivations (other than arbitrarily wanting the Heart of Tefiti)
>defeat them and move on, they never come back or are mentioned ever again

>Maui needs his hook, cut to monster realm that again has very little backstory, explanation, or context and very conveniently happens to have an entrance on a nearby island that will dump them in exactly the place they need to end up in
>get hook back, leave monster realm, it never comes up again or has any consequences whatsoever

>cut to Island of Tefiti to face Te'ka

I dunno, it just felt like a series of events that were only tenuously connected to each other. There were no consequences for any of those diversions and they just come and go with little warning or context. It feels less like an ocean adventure and more like a bunch of writers in a room saying "And you know what would be cool to see?" without worrying about actually stringing it into a real narrative.

I will just leave this here:
hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2004-sexual-behavior-in-pre-contact-hawaii.html

>coconut creatures need a backstory
nah, that's lame

>monster rhelm needs backstory
ditto. It's the fucking monster rhelm, what do you need to say?

>no consequence
now I just know you're a redditor. Always talking like some "expert" about meaning and explanations that'd ruin a film in reality by bogging it down in exposition.
Your ideas aren't good and you don't know how to make good films.

because brown people are the future

What was the point of the pig? I heard this movie was rushed, so I get a feeling that the pig had a part, but it got cut out because they needed to finish it.
Same thing goes for those coconut guys, what wat the point of them?

>mediocre
confirmed never having watched this. That or Disney isn't your thing in which case you shouldn't be judging this film.

Pig was obviously going to be a mascot character at one point.

I think they replaced the pig to not make it a typical Disney Princess movie with a typical animal sidekick.

>What's mediocre about it?
Well you didn't mention anything about the plot so there's that.

I just don't like that all this stuff just pops up and goes away without ever coming up again.

why do people assume that anyone with different opinions must be pretending?
the truth is, op, you're just a pleb

He had some valid complains. Why are you calling him reddit when your the one defending a flimsy story?

>Adult males and adult females engaged in all water sports without clothes. They dared not wear wet clothes on land, because to do so in the presence of royalty was a crime punishable by death
WEW

It's a valid complaint in the context of modern movies, where having stuff introduced then not calling back to it is considered a little off, but it's not universal and most people don't mind it

Plenty of voyage narratives have similar set pieces like odyssey, gullivers travels, and prince caspian and the dawn treader , all have one off settings that have no real payoff in terms of callbacks

(Not guy you replied to)

Sure. But in Moana it's clearly just these standard tame action sequences inserted into the story, just to keep the audiences attention. If they at least was a bit interesting and had something more to offer than some action, I would also welcome it.
(This only goes for those coconut people. The monster underworld I'm OK with)

Take rock giants in the hobbit, pointless.
But while Gollum also was pointless to the overall plot, riddle in the dark was still a great sequence.

Why would I pretend if it's a really good movie? Just watch it senpai.

There IS something more to offer but you just miss it because you think the movie is just a story about this girl going on an adventure. What you and some of the people that criticize the movie miss is that it has deeper meaning; it it follows an archetypal story (much like previous classic Disney films). The settings, the characters, the villain, etc. play a very specific role which is why you just don't need so much background on the coconut pirates for example, because they represent an idea rather than just being part of the lore (although they are, it's just that it's not important).

Listen carefully to the songs, they reveal a lot of the "hidden" meanings.

The biggest problem with this movie was the ocean. The fact that Moana was never in any real danger as the ocean constantly intervened on her behalf took any sense of suspense out of the movie

Why didn't the ocean just return the heart?

Not true. Where was the ocean when her foot got stuck underwater? or when the storm upturned her boat?

Actually Maui asked just that (when they were climbing that ridge) and Moana just looked confused and didn't answer.

>brown people
>posts russian slut

Says a lot about their mental capacities.

Did you watch the movie? The ocean is was literally everywhere is just about every scene

(You)

Songs are catchy, I can't say the movie is great but the fucking songs are stuck in my head

are those hip implants?

>adventure
>ugly and flawed but likable characters
>no faggot romance

you're welcome

no the ass is just too fat

Some men have daughters, faggtos.

Just watched it with my 5-year-old today for the second time and she loved it.

Your daughter is a fucking whore that gets plowed in the bathroom by the black janitor

your contrarianism can only take you so far in life my dude.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

neat!

what did he mean by this?

I haven't seen the movie but from what I've seen of clips l, the main thing that annoyed me was Dwayne Johnsons voice acting. His voice looks like it doesn't match his character, they literally just picked him cause he's a giant somoan. Someone like vin diesel would probably have been a better voice, but I'm sure his singing would have been dogshit. Like flaming dogshit. A big pile of flaming Hawaiian dog shit with ham and pineapples

So whta better, this or
>SHINY!

Where do you think you are?