Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

[John Andrews Stan]

Wouldn't his parents be on the younger end of the Boomer generation at the youngest? Because I think that generation's age range ends around 1965 and Bob's an '81 birth. I doubt his parents had him at 15. He'd be the Millennial son of Boomer parents.

His parents seemed to start having children when they were somewhat advanced in age — hence all the autism in their kids and grandkids.

 

[RockVolnutt]

His parents seemed to start having children when they were somewhat advanced in age — hence all the autism in their kids and grandkids.

It'd be pretty fucked if he had Silent Generation parents but I don't recall photos of his dad well enough to guess if he was mid-40s when Bob was born. Either way, his sense of time's fucked.

 

[Mola Ram]

His parents seemed to start having children when they were somewhat advanced in age — hence all the autism in their kids and grandkids.

Chipman the Elder was 63 at the time of his death in 2017, so he was only in his late 20s when he sired the Blob. I'd blame more of Bob's problems on his upbringing, and possibly being born in Massachusetts.

Peter L. Chipman Obituary - Visitation & Funeral Information

Share Memories & Support the Family.

www.solimine.com

 

[make_it_so]

Looking at teenager Bobert makes me think he wasn't bullied enough.

Reading adult Bobert makes me think he wasn't bullied enough.

 

[ChampFantana]

View attachment 2699095

I just want to remind everyone that THIS ogre claims that reading Judy Blume scored him a threesome in high school. He also totally learned to eat pussy from a dyke.

Of course, none of the above is true. Lardo Retardo is a virgin and always will be.

 

[Laughingjoke2]

His 80's take really irked me so here's a little extra more to prove Blobby is a total fool.

As a kid born in the very late 70's and primarily having my childhood in the 80's Bobert took a jab at Reagan and 80's cartoons just selling toys with I guess means to him they had no Diversity in their characters well wrong again Bobert.

G.I. Joe RAH was one of those shows and let's see how many minority Joe's there were back then

Black Guys: Roadblock, Stalker, Iceberg, Alpine, Doc, & Big Lob.

Hispanic: Law.

Asian: Quick Kick, Tunnel Rat, and Jinx (and also Female).

Disabled: Snake Eyes (Mute).

Women: Scarlet, Lady Jaye, & Cover Girl.

One of the biggest Reagan Era patriotic flag waving 80's cartoon developed to sell toys so also capitalist was more naturally diverse than any woke trash you jack it to Blobby like that awful Netflix She-Ra and you should know this given you once dressed as Sgt. Slaughter Blobby.

Other shows like Transformers had the Wheelchair kid Chip, Ghostbusters had Winston, C.O.P.S. chief was Black hell most 80's shows had some kind of minority character unless the characters weren't human and even some of those had coded black characters I mean we all know Panthro (Thundercats) and Jazz (Transformers) were black.

Difference was back then minorities were treated as characters and not agendas.

 

[make_it_so]

His 80's take really irked me so here's a little extra more to prove Blobby is a total fool.

As a kid born in the very late 70's and primarily having my childhood in the 80's Bobert took a jab at Reagan and 80's cartoons just selling toys with I guess means to him they had no Diversity in their characters well wrong again Bobert.

G.I. Joe RAH was one of those shows and let's see how many minority Joe's there were back then

Black Guys: Roadblock, Stalker, Iceberg, Alpine, Doc, & Big Lob.

Hispanic: Law.

Asian: Quick Kick, Tunnel Rat, and Jinx (and also Female).

Disabled: Snake Eyes (Mute).

Women: Scarlet, Lady Jaye, & Cover Girl.

Don't forget Native/Indigenous Peoples: Airborne, Spirit, and Torpedo.

But more to your point, the diversity in that show and others was natural because no one said anything about it. The characters simply were. Just like how in the original TOS Stark Trek where the diversity felt natural because none of the characters made issue about their racial or gender identity, it wasn't important to them. In that sense, 1960's Star Trek with it's miniskirt uniforms is actually more progressive than modern-era trash like STD.

 

[Flexo]

And here's a sane view on the Eternals by drinker.

 

[Grumpy Pickle Rick]

"Its a Grown Up movie that will make some people feel uncomfortable"
Fuck off. Come and See is a grown up movie STALKER is a grown up movie the movie with Micheal Fassbender as a coomer is a grown up movie, the Eternals is just some paint by numbers b-movie shlock, hell its not even the most grown up superhero movie id argue Logan is but am willing to be argued off that point.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again I don’t understand why Bob and ilk insist on describing the MCU and Disney movies, ‘high art’.

Are they fun but mediocre movies? Yes.

High art for a sophisticated class? Hell no.

I don’t why they won’t the stuff they like is kid stuff. There’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[EnemyStand]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again I don’t understand why Bob and ilk insist on describing the MCU and Disney movies, ‘high art’.

Are they fun but mediocre movies? Yes.

High art for a sophisticated class? Hell no.

I don’t why they won’t the stuff they like is kid stuff. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Here's what I don't get: why does entertainment need to be high art? As long as it's entertaining, who cares? Sure, high art can be entertaining, but making high art requires a different focus than making something that's just fun. I guess my point is, why do these morons want everything taken so seriously?

 

[Grumpy Pickle Rick]

Here's what I don't get: why does entertainment need to be high art? As long as it's entertaining, who cares? Sure, high art can be entertaining, but making high art requires a different focus than making something that's just fun. I guess my point is, why do these morons want everything taken so seriously?

I agree.

The point of entertainment is that it’s supposed to be fun! There’s no need to take it so seriously.

Just have fun.

 

[Koby_Fish]

His 80's take really irked me so here's a little extra more to prove Blobby is a total fool.

As a kid born in the very late 70's and primarily having my childhood in the 80's Bobert took a jab at Reagan and 80's cartoons just selling toys with I guess means to him they had no Diversity in their characters well wrong again Bobert.

G.I. Joe RAH was one of those shows and let's see how many minority Joe's there were back then

Black Guys: Roadblock, Stalker, Iceberg, Alpine, Doc, & Big Lob.

Hispanic: Law.

Asian: Quick Kick, Tunnel Rat, and Jinx (and also Female).

Disabled: Snake Eyes (Mute).

Women: Scarlet, Lady Jaye, & Cover Girl.

One of the biggest Reagan Era patriotic flag waving 80's cartoon developed to sell toys so also capitalist was more naturally diverse than any woke trash you jack it to Blobby like that awful Netflix She-Ra and you should know this given you once dressed as Sgt. Slaughter Blobby.

Other shows like Transformers had the Wheelchair kid Chip, Ghostbusters had Winston, C.O.P.S. chief was Black hell most 80's shows had some kind of minority character unless the characters weren't human and even some of those had coded black characters I mean we all know Panthro (Thundercats) and Jazz (Transformers) were black.

Difference was back then minorities were treated as characters and not agendas.

Bob and his ilk don't understand what "woke" (as the pejorative) actually means. They also goalpost-move about it and the concept of "politics" in media.

Now, granted, "politics" is a broad topic, but these windowlicking crayon eaters like Bob want you to believe that ANY mention of ANY politics AT ALL, like even politics that are integral to the story (like say, the Nazi Aliens plot in Star Trek TOS - as opposed to inserting real-world politics in a decidedly heavyhanded, subtle-as-a-sledgehammer way, rather than allegorical manner) is "politics in media", and not only that, is equivalent to planting a troon in a latter-day story whose entire identity revolves around "have I mentioned I'm trans?" every 5 seconds, and then claim, "Politics was ALWAYS in X!"

Having been old enough to watch Saturday Morning Cartoons since the early 70s all the way up until they vanished from Network Television (aside some independent stations and the rise of cartoon-heavy stations like YTV and Teletoon in Canada, and Cartoon Network in USA), let me tell you. If Bob thinks 70s/80s Superfriends was "woke", they did "woke" a LOT better back then, than they do now. Nobody made a big deal, or any deal at all really, about any diverse characters being diverse. They just were. The stories were the focus, not the identities. Now, I don't think anyone can accuse Superfriends of having the best writing, but it's far superior to the Steven Universes (story-wise) available now.

Bob, for all his highfalutin' "education" in the Hyoomanities, wouldn't know a good story if it clobbered him over the head. Hence why he thinks Eternals is great, because he was mesmerized by the diversity and action scenes. Maybe he thinks "story" is the entire thing, the action plus dialogue and whatever else, rather than, the message the movie is trying to convey. A story that seems disjointed or confused and thus seems to be 'all over the place', is NOT a good story, and no amount of Michael Bay explosions/PS3 Graphic-esque fight scenes can change that.

I suspect people like Bob rate movies on how big of a dopamine hit is gained from viewing it, and I'm guessing the dopamine hits are all coming from the action scenes. So then I suspect at least 5 of the 8/10 Bob rated Eternals at, is pure dopamine hit influenced. Now, I'm no movie critic, but I'm pretty sure letting the blatant fight-scene dopamine hits influence the entire score of the movie disproportionately, is NOT good movie-reviewing practice. Because, this is what the MCU (and other movies of its type, like Michael Bay's Transformers series) are COUNTING ON - the dopamine hits, to trick people into liking the movie even if the movie is average to poor. Better critics would be able to see through this ploy and ignore the dopamine hits or at least weigh them properly in comparison to the rest of the film, which is why Bob's such a terrible, incompetent critic. "I like this because it gives me dopamine hits" is something Bob isn't likely to ever admit to, but when a critic calls something "fun", odds are that's the dopamine hit talking, especially if the movie itself is lacklustre storywise or acting-wise.

(Also LOL at Bob mentioning Cargo Cult earlier, has baby brother been reading this thread to him or something?)

 

[make_it_so]

Here's what I don't get: why does entertainment need to be high art? As long as it's entertaining, who cares? Sure, high art can be entertaining, but making high art requires a different focus than making something that's just fun. I guess my point is, why do these morons want everything taken so seriously?

I think it goes back to comic book nerds and other "geeks" wanting their hobbies to get mainstream recognition and be taken seriously. Something that it looked like we would start to get in or around 2008 when Iron Man launched the MCU and The Dark Knight was a massive box office and critical success.

Of course, in hindsight that's looking like to be a major monkey's paw wish. Marvel, Star Wars, Star Trek and others did get their big mainstream push...and the result has been for the lore and universes to get diluted if not outright retconned in order to dumb them down and gets as wide an appeal as possible. Marvel and DC comics proper suffered the Woke infestation in order to "increase mainstream appeal" while their movie adaptations (particularly the MCU) started to devolve into the same copy-paste blockbuster formula. Dungeons & Dragons and Magic the Gathering started to change and turned hostile towards their fanbases in order to try to bring in more "diverse" customers (ignoring that diverse customers probably would've come in the first place because they liked the games as they were). Star Wars had two decades worth of lore chucked out the window so Mr. Mystery Box and his cadre of talentless hacks could make a lame copy of the original film and try to appeal to the Tumblr crowd. And Star Trek...well I've said plenty about what's wrong with modern Star Trek.

 

[King Dead]

Here's what I don't get: why does entertainment need to be high art? As long as it's entertaining, who cares? Sure, high art can be entertaining, but making high art requires a different focus than making something that's just fun. I guess my point is, why do these morons want everything taken so seriously?

Because, to quote C.S. Lewis again (I'm really going to need to do a deep dive of his writings because there are so many good quotes):

Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.

At some point, they began to feel embarrassed by the fact they liked things designed for children, whether it were video games, comic books, cartoons, or whatever. They saw their peers either putting those things behind them or just not making as much of a big deal out of them, so they began to feel singled out, and thus ashamed. As Lewis points out, this is a natural part of a child's development in small doses, but when you remain consumed by these feelings into adulthood, you're only hurting yourself.

It's the same reason why a subset of gamers got all offended by Roger Ebert's insistence that video games weren't art, and then spent years yelling about why X or Y totally proved him wrong. People like Bob believe that if they can prove how the things they like are actually for mature audiences, then they no longer have to be embarrassed about what they enjoy because they'll finally be sitting with the grownups. So they'll make long-winded diatribes about how the MCU is actually way deeper than the normies think it is, or wax philosophic about the latest animated abortion on TV and how it actually has a darker side. But while they may be trying to convince others, it really seems more like they're trying to convince themselves.

Of course, that's the point in the end: people really don't give a shit about what you do or don't like, by and large. They might not be all that enthused about your going on for hours about your favorite show, but that's true for anything whether it's meant for kids or adults. Enjoy things on their own terms, and be passionate about what you love (to an extent; again, know when to shut up). It's a mark of maturity to accept yourself for who you are, not to try and force what you like into a mold it's not designed to fit. Clearly, Bob and his ilk are not mature.

 

[Koby_Fish]

you know what? Maybe we need to add something to movie review scores. Like, either on its own, or integrated into the score itself, broken down into subsections, and have like:
(numbers for demonstration only)

plot/story: 5/10
acting: 6/10
Dopamine hits: 8/10

What I wouldn't give to see Bob's "dopamine hit" rating on each of the movies he reviews. That would tend to confirm my thesis that Bob considers a movie good (or bad) depending on the dopamine hits (or lack thereof) he gets. Which is, probably, why he hates the Snyder Cut: It gave him little to no dopamine hits. He didn't ALLOW the dopamine to hit, or ignored any dopamine hits, for purely ideological Holy Autism War reasons.

 

[EnemyStand]

Because, to quote C.S. Lewis again (I'm really going to need to do a deep dive of his writings because there are so many good quotes):

At some point, they began to feel embarrassed by the fact they liked things designed for children, whether it were video games, comic books, cartoons, or whatever. They saw their peers either putting those things behind them or just not making as much of a big deal out of them, so they began to feel singled out, and thus ashamed. As Lewis points out, this is a natural part of a child's development in small doses, but when you remain consumed by these feelings into adulthood, you're only hurting yourself.

I guess I really don't understand this because I was never really embarrassed about my hobbies. My old man would give me a hard time about them occasionally ("He's in his 20s and still playing with toys!" and stuff like that) but I never really quite felt embarrassed. I had this feeling maybe I should be a couple of times, but every time I just shrugged and went on with my bad self. My mom's perspective, which I adopted, is everyone has a hobby and everyone outside that hobby thinks it's stupid. This makes sense though.

It's the same reason why a subset of gamers got all offended by Roger Ebert's insistence that video games weren't art, and then spent years yelling about why X or Y totally proved him wrong. People like Bob believe that if they can prove how the things they like are actually for mature audiences, then they no longer have to be embarrassed about what they enjoy because they'll finally be sitting with the grownups. So they'll make long-winded diatribes about how the MCU is actually way deeper than the normies think it is, or wax philosophic about the latest animated abortion on TV and how it actually has a darker side. But while they may be trying to convince others, it really seems more like they're trying to convince themselves.

Yeah, I remember that. I caught shit from my peers for laughing it off and saying things like "Yeah, he's absolutely right but so what?" or "But do you like it? Who cares what some old fart thinks?" They were insistent that video games were an artistic medium and was deserving of respect, when having that respect never really mattered. Probably why no one other than Yahtzee ever really wanted to admit David Cage games suck. This was at the height of the new "All reading is an intellectual exercise" philosophy, so you can probably imagine as bad as Bob is, you can trust me when I say that he's just the most well known of these retards. The ur-tard, if you will.

Of course, that's the point in the end: people really don't give a shit about what you do or don't like, by and large. They might not be all that enthused about your going on for hours about your favorite show, but that's true for anything whether it's meant for kids or adults. Enjoy things on their own terms, and be passionate about what you love (to an extent; again, know when to shut up). It's a mark of maturity to accept yourself for who you are, not to try and force what you like into a mold it's not designed to fit. Clearly, Bob and his ilk are not mature.

And that's the million dollar answer. As long as you can comport yourself as an adjusted human being, the worst you're going to get is that people will think you're a bit weird. It's a sad state when people my age can't let go of their insecurities and just have a good time. I'm involved in multiple gaming clubs in my area, and because I care about the health of the clubs and games people involved in those hobbies tend to like me. The ones who don't? They take the game too seriously and they don't have a whole lot of people who like them anyway, so fuck 'em. The mature people realize it's just how you blow off steam and have fun, the babies whine about tournament wins and invitational selections.

 

[Steely Dan]

Robert is wrong while calling someone else "SO stupid" yet again:
View attachment 2698359
There were no "laws" there were industry standards much like the Hays Code and Comics Code, but the Carter administration properly filed an anti-trust suit against them because they cartelized against advertisers. (One of the requirements of the Code was that airtime had to be provided for religious broadcast for free and that religion could not be disparaged, the genesis of a bunch of BELIEVERS probably!) The one time the FCC tried to impose a content regulation on fictional TV programming, a "Family Hour" with severe content regulations for the 8-9PM timeslot, it was struck down as unconstitutional before it could actually be implemented.

His takes on old cartoons are really funny to me since I'm an autist for old animation and the history of cartoons. Bob fails to realize that the "antifascist" cartoons from the 40s were literally U.S. Gov't funded war propaganda. Were the anti-Japanese cartoons also "woke as fuck" as the anti-Nazi ones, Bob; when Bugs Bunny dresses as a big-toothed Jap with slanty eyes?

Also, 60s-70s is considered by many (myself included) to be the dark ages of American animation, and for a good reason. The artistic highlight back then was cheap and terrible Hanna-Barbera garbage. Were the ungodly looking Synchro-Vox tunes """woke as fuck""", Bob? Since this is what you would see on Saturday mornings in the 70s:

 

[Flexo]

(I'm really going to need to do a deep dive of his writings because there are so many good quotes):

Check out the abolition of man.

You'll swear Lewis was reading this board in the 50s when he wrote it.

 

[TigerGoblin]

Just like how in the original TOS Stark Trek where the diversity felt natural because none of the characters made issue about their racial or gender identity, it wasn't important to them. In that sense, 1960's Star Trek with it's miniskirt uniforms is actually more progressive than modern-era trash like STD.

Which is EXACTLY what The emissary himself says when asked about playing a black captain. Timecode 08:20

I think it goes back to comic book nerds and other "geeks" wanting their hobbies to get mainstream recognition and be taken seriously. Something that it looked like we would start to get in or around 2008 when Iron Man launched the MCU and The Dark Knight was a massive box office and critical success.

Of course, in hindsight that's looking like to be a major monkey's paw wish. Marvel, Star Wars, Star Trek and others did get their big mainstream push...and the result has been for the lore and universes to get diluted if not outright retconned in order to dumb them down and gets as wide an appeal as possible. Marvel and DC comics proper suffered the Woke infestation in order to "increase mainstream appeal" while their movie adaptations (particularly the MCU) started to devolve into the same copy-paste blockbuster formula. Dungeons & Dragons and Magic the Gathering started to change and turned hostile towards their fanbases in order to try to bring in more "diverse" customers (ignoring that diverse customers probably would've come in the first place because they liked the games as they were). Star Wars had two decades worth of lore chucked out the window so Mr. Mystery Box and his cadre of talentless hacks could make a lame copy of the original film and try to appeal to the Tumblr crowd. And Star Trek...well I've said plenty about what's wrong with modern Star Trek.

My personal best example will probably get a lot of flak here, and it is very hated character in these zones of the internet. And it makes me so sad.
For years. YEARS. Carol Danvers was one of my favorite heroes. Second only to Peter Parker. She was interesting and flawed and compelling character. She had arcs dealing with alcoholism and betrayel by her friends and getting court martialed for killing a supervillain. She had complex relationships with almost anyone she knew: the X-Men, The Avengers, hell even the Starjammers.
She was always in a bit of a risk, though. Because she was C-List tier character. There was always the chance that she would be killed or sent to limbo for years etc. So when her big push started circa 2005 in New Avengers I was overjoyed and for the most part her trying to build on who she was and making herself the best she can be in her ongoing (Brian Reed run) was really inspiring (when it wasnt distracted by "events").
She was also unashamedly sexy. There was always some "angry posts" here and there about Frank Cho cover or another or an ass shot when she looks at TV. The usual stuff. But more then everything she was fun.

I should have been overjoyed to see her launched to A-List status. to see her get a billion dollar movie. To get recognition, but I felt hollow about it. After a while it hit me:
The character which is now known as Captain Marvel has nothing to do with Carol Danvers I grew up with.

It's not just the costume or the hair or the art stile which made her masculine. Its her mannerism. Its her becoming not fun, uncomplex shallow cardboard character which acts and says "the right thing" and always acts with super conviction. Its like, remember when Doc Ock took over Peter Parker body for awhile and nobody knew but he acted like an asshole? I feel that somewhere during that transition to "Captain Marvel" (a move which I was not against) Carol Danvers was replaced by completely different character with the same name (and not really the same looks) and now the charcter I loved so much is in eternal limbo because of that.

 

[TowinKarz]

Also, 60s-70s is considered by many (myself included) to be the dark ages of American animation, and for a good reason.

Synchro-Vox was a mistake...

Also, next time some old classic H-B cartoon short comes on.... leave the room, and, I'll bet, without actually BEING in the room and WATCHING the actual "animation" , you can still tell what's going on..... Chuck Jones dirisively called the toons of that era "Animated Radio" for a reason.,... the animation isn't just lazy when you get right down to it, it's completely superfluous.

Now, don't get me wrong, they have a place, kids are entertained enough by them, but, in the grand pantheon of animation, they are but minor deities. And there's nothing wrong with that, just don't get all butthurt and claim Yogi Bear was some super-deep thing when his real contribution to the art form was just keeping the lights on into the late 70's / early 80's