|
McCloud posted:That depends entirely on how they're killed off. If their sole purpose and function in a movie is to die, then I'd say so, yes. Male characters who had been killed for the sake of dramatic reaction: Dr. Yinsen, Dr. Erskine, Bucky (shown alive after the movie), Agent Coulson (same, although probably not the same guy). Female characters who have been killed for the sake of dramatic reaction: Frigga. In eight movies, they're allowed to kill a woman. quote:That doesn't matter. What matters is that the people who made the movie needed a way to unite Thor and Loki, and what they came up with was to murder their mother.[spoiler] It doesn't matter what the justification for it is, that's the solution they went with. They could have come up with another reason for them teaming up, but they went with the easy and imo lazy way. Since the first movie, Frigga was shown to be the one person Loki cared about. That's why something had to happen to her. Loki is a character defined for being a liar. We needed to have him grounded in some way that we could trust him on possibly doing the right thing. As he said, "Trust my rage," because there was no backdoor out of that take on him unless they wanted to pull a complete 180 on his characterization for the sake of evil. If they wanted to go the lazy way, they would have just had Thor say, "If you don't help me, we'll all die." Even if they did go with that, there'd be very little sympathy for Loki's actions, as he'd be acting out of cowardice. We wouldn't want him to turn good nearly as much. We'd just be waiting for the other shoe to drop.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
I'm ready to see Thor punch something other than space elves. We get it: he's good at that. I want to see him fight Enchantress or the Wrecking Crew or something really comic book-y and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
How about a robot with a really angry face?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Gavok posted:How about a robot with a really angry face? I want a Thor with a space-horse face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:What misunderstanding? Odin says in the film that the Ether sometimes takes the form of a stone so it's already there. See, I was pretty sure he said the exact opposite thing. That he commented on how most such forces in the nine realms take the form of a stone, but that the aether was unique in that it's natural shape was fluid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Re: Loki, I don't think he wants power, he just wants to prove to his father that he would be a better king than Thor. Once he replaced Odin, he had access to the armory, the Tesseract and who knows how many other artifacts the asgardians have collected over the years, but he willingly gave away the Ether even though he probably knows about the infinity gauntlet. Power is just a means to an end, and once he accomplished that end he had no further need for dangerous trinkets that could threaten his kingdom. For now, he's just going to focus on being the best king ever so he can show Odin how smart he is. Maybe then Odin will love him as much as he loves Thor. Also, anyone looking to collect all the infinity gems will have to get the Tesseract from Asgaard, which will put them at odds with Loki. Medullah posted:I actually laughed heavily at the (post credits scene #2) monster merrily running around trying to eat the birds. I like to think the Brits tried to get rid of it, but decided to keep it around once they realized it liked to eat pigeons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I kind of like the movie idea that the artifacts can have their forms changed. I'm curious to see what other artifacts make up the rest of the stones. It wouldn't surprise me if the gem in Loki's staff from Avengers was the mind gem. But I don't think all of this is going to come together until Avengers 3, so GOTG, Avengers 2, and some other movie between then will have the rest of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
It would really be great if the events of New York and then London in the Marvel Cinematic Universe lead to the formation of MI13.Codependent Poster posted:It wouldn't surprise me if the gem in Loki's staff from Avengers was the mind gem. But I don't think all of this is going to come together until Avengers 3, so GOTG, Avengers 2, and some other movie between then will have the rest of them. If the Doctor Strange movie is happening, maybe we can expect more Infinity Stones to be introduced then. The MSJ fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, they could totally adapt the old Alan Moore/Alan Davis Captain Britain stuff in some way (it'd be pretty entertaining if there's an episode of SHIELD referencing the British Prime Minister James Jaspers or something small like that), while using parts of Claremont's original plan for "Mutant Massacre" and "Fall Of the Mutants" (instead of the Marauders and the Adversary, he wanted to use the Fury, but Moore objected and he had to change his plans). They could just call it "Fall of the Avengers" or something. Probably too obscure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:It would really be great if the events of New York and then London in the Marvel Cinematic Universe lead to the formation of MI13. I dunno, doesn't Pete Wisdom under Fox's deal? Not sure I want MI-13 without that that bastard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Pete Wisdom and Faiza Hussain on the SHIELD TV show please and thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:
Agreed, I don't want to poo poo up the thread so I'm just gonna let it drop. I don't want to be that guy. Suffice to say I've been reading a bit too much DC lately and maybe I've just gotten used to thinking the worst about these situations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:30
|
|
when I realize I'm actively participating in it.
|
LightsGameraAction posted:I want a Thor with a space-horse face. But would he speak with a Scottish accent? The Beta Ray Bill episode of the Silver Surfer cartoon was loving weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Of all the callbacks to the previous movies (and the Chris Evans cameo is awesome) I think my favourite might actually be that Kat Dennings' character still can't pronounce Mjolnir.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Of all the callbacks to the previous movies (and the Chris Evans cameo is awesome)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:I think I heard maybe two words he said because the whole theater was busy flipping out. He was also clearly having a ball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
So I liked this movie enough that I started reading Walt Simonson's Thor run from the 80s. It is as good as everyone says. It's also interesting how much both Thor movies and the Avengers crib from it - movie Malekith is kind of like a combination of comic Malekith and Surtur, and the Chitauri attack in Avengers draws a lot from the big demon invasion of New York. Now I know why everyone likes Beta Ray Bill so much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Of all the callbacks to the previous movies (and the Chris Evans cameo is awesome) I think my favourite might actually be that Kat Dennings' character still can't pronounce Mjolnir. I smirked at a lot of the one-liners throughout the movie, but I was wide grinning and laughing through the entire final act because from "Why are there so many shoes here?" to the post-credits scene it's amazing how many fun call backs to the humor throughout are in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 07:00
|
|
|
Little Mac posted:Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, and The Wolverine were all great times - Kick-rear end 2...? I'm sorry, what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
I may be hopelessly clueless and/or nitpicky, but I thought it was odd that no one, not even Odin, referred to them as Svartalves before simplifying to 'dark elves'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
Beachcomber posted:I may be hopelessly clueless and/or nitpicky, but I thought it was odd that no one, not even Odin, referred to them as Svartalves before simplifying to 'dark elves'. The Danish subtitles called them Svartalfer! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 13:19
|
|
|
Race Realists posted:I'm sorry, what? A movie with a domestic take of $291 million was liked by a few people. Shocking, I know. E: I know appealing to sales numbers is a lovely argument but this is like the third time in as many days someone has acted like it's the casually accepted wisdom that Man of Steel was a horrible piece poo poo, and that ain't how the threads or the reviews went when it came out. McSpanky fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:A movie with a domestic take of $291 million was liked by a few people. Shocking, I know. Man of Steel was always destined to make money though. The Dark Knight trilogy basically printed money, and this was supposed to be that kind of take on Superman. Superman is a name that basically prints money. Plus you had Zack Snyder who is still relatively well received at least among the general populace. There were so many different interests to take into consideration, so many people were going to see it just because. The public reaction to the sequels will be a lot more interesting to observe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
Public interest in the sequels will be hard to gauge against the first movie because it looks like they're throwing all the poo poo they have against the wall. But I loved Man of Steel, and this Halloween I saw more kids dressed as superman than ever, and that makes me feel happy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
greatn posted:Public interest in the sequels will be hard to gauge against the first movie because it looks like they're throwing all the poo poo they have against the wall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Obviously this should be taken with a huge grain of salt but Kevin Smith has claimed to have seen Affleck in the new Batman costume and he's saying its in a completely different direction than previous movie versions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Obviously this should be taken with a huge grain of salt but Kevin Smith has claimed to have seen Affleck in the new Batman costume and he's saying its in a completely different direction than previous movie versions. Wow, so he can actually turn his head this time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Obviously this should be taken with a huge grain of salt but Kevin Smith has claimed to have seen Affleck in the new Batman costume and he's saying its in a completely different direction than previous movie versions. Some days, you just can't get rid of a commercial and financial bomb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Obviously this should be taken with a huge grain of salt but Kevin Smith has claimed to have seen Affleck in the new Batman costume and he's saying its in a completely different direction than previous movie versions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
I've been entertaining the idea that Affleck Batman and Cavill Superman could be kinda like Loki and Thor in The Dark World, respectively. That might be an interesting way to do it, but I'm not completely convinced Batman is even allowed to be anything other than dour/brooding/I AM THE NIGHT all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Obviously this should be taken with a huge grain of salt but Kevin Smith has claimed to have seen Affleck in the new Batman costume and he's saying its in a completely different direction than previous movie versions. Could the long national nightmare be over? Could we finally be free of the terrible skull design for the mask?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Obviously this should be taken with a huge grain of salt but Kevin Smith has claimed to have seen Affleck in the new Batman costume and he's saying its in a completely different direction than previous movie versions. So there will be a small black oval symbol on an otherwise yellow suit. I'm fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
Less armor and more cloth/leather is my guess. A less militaristic Batman to contrast if/when he needs special souped up armor to face Superman? If at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Affleck as Batman for the common man. Jeans, T-shirt with a bat on it, dishtowel cape!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Less armor and more cloth/leather is my guess. A less militaristic Batman to contrast if/when he needs special souped up armor to face Superman? If at all. It should just be Superman's suit but black and with a bat. "Heyyy, no fair! Get your own!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Lobok posted:It should just be Superman's suit but black and with a bat. To you, it's a bat. In my mind, it's the symbol of fear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Waterhaul posted:Could the long national nightmare be over? Could we finally be free of the terrible skull design for the mask? He's wearing hand-me-downs from the Thomas Jane Punisher movie with a cape. I actually really liked Man of Steel, and I'm cautiously optimistic for Batman vs Superman or whatever the gently caress they'll call it, but everything announced makes it sound so desperate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
catlord posted:He's wearing hand-me-downs from the Thomas Jane Punisher movie with a cape. That would be because it is desperate. The desperate cry of a Warner Bros who thought all the discussion of Avengers and JLA movie franchises was just bar talk, the sort of thing you say you'll totally do one day while nursing the night's 3rd pitcher. Then Disney/Marvel totally did it and ruined everything!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:That would be because it is desperate. The desperate cry of a Warner Bros who thought all the discussion of Avengers and JLA movie franchises was just bar talk, the sort of thing you say you'll totally do one day while nursing the night's 3rd pitcher. Then Disney/Marvel totally did it and ruined everything! It's partly how caught off guard they were by the runaway success of the Marvel movies, and partly that they want to mimic the success without putting in even half of the effort. Avengers was a huge, huge investment and undertaking, but it was the result of years of careful planning and structuring an entire cinematic universe that would lead logically into an Avengers movie. Not hiring A-listers, not using A-list directors, doing their best to save money as much as possible where they could to ensure the quality of the films themselves. DC looks at this and says that just because they're DC they can of course do what Marvel can do better. But they want to do it without any kind of long-term planning, using A-list actors and A-list directors and in general throwing as much money into every project as they can. If the JLA movie ever gets made it's going to be the most incoherent, expensive mess of a movie since Michael Bay's Transformers films and that's even assuming that Michael Bay isn't going to direct it, which isn't all that unlikely a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
It's interesting to note too when Marvel started making movies, before Disney bought them. They took out a massive loan and became a studio themselves so they had to move things along with a $500 million loan hanging over their heads. The opposite is that WB has all the time and the money in the world to do things and well, they certainly act as though they have all the time in the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:29
|
|