|
Amazing Atheist should totally team up with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron to review bananas. Those guys are already experts about bananas, but I reckon the Amazing Atheist could probably teach them something new about them.
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
Jsor posted:A few years ago, I thought the AA had a couple good videos and gave him a go, but after 3 or 4 I figured out it was just those couple. I remember he made an oddly humble video right after he got married and it had a lot of good points in it. But yeah, he's definitely appealing to the young atheist crowd in general that want to scream "gently caress YOU MOM AND DAD I WON'T GO TO CHURCH ANYMORE." Wheat Loaf posted:Amazing Atheist should totally team up with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron to review bananas. Those guys are already experts about bananas, but I reckon the Amazing Atheist could probably teach them something new about them. Amusingly as soon as I opened up youtube after looking at this thread I saw this: 
Tracula fucked around with this message at 23:18 on May 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Tracula posted:Amusingly as soon as I opened up youtube after looking at this thread I saw this: It's a sign. You must follow the way of the Banana.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
The most disgusting thing about the amazing atheist is that he gets off on being humiliated, so that banana video and the one where he burns his dick with boiling oil were both deliberate attempts to get people to laugh at him. Mocking him and calling him poo poo gives him sexual gratification and he's using you to give it to him. It might be a big motive behind his whole persona.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:People read SMG posts? It's funny because I don't remember ever using the ignore list feature on any internet forums. I've been on SA for over ten years I don't recall ever using it. But I learned not too long ago, that I did indeed have one person on my ignore list. And guess who it was ... SMG. Don't know how he got there, but it had to have been for a good reason.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Even if he's wrong, his posts take a large amount of effort and are extremely entertaining. No one should block SMG.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I took him off ignore after I found out.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:Even if he's wrong, his posts take a large amount of effort and are extremely entertaining. No one should block SMG. Yea I agree with like 1 out of 100 of them but he's clearly putting a mad amount of thought in his crazy persona and most of them are pretty fun to see what weirdo wormhole he's going through. It's a lesson to all critics, really, if you're going to be insane, commit.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea I agree with like 1 out of 100 of them but he's clearly putting a mad amount of thought in his crazy persona and most of them are pretty fun to see what weirdo wormhole he's going through. He gets pissy and combative whenever somebody calls him on an actually poor or inconsistent reading, but he's one of the only posters that I think to identify by username. For the effort he puts in, he's fun. The people who get furious at his readings and attack him ruin every thread, though.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:The most disgusting thing about the amazing atheist is that he gets off on being humiliated, so that banana video and the one where he burns his dick with boiling oil were both deliberate attempts to get people to laugh at him. Mocking him and calling him poo poo gives him sexual gratification and he's using you to give it to him. It might be a big motive behind his whole persona. I've just been kind of assuming this is the case with every one of his "type" because it makes a lot more sense. You think Matt Forney doesn't get a boner at the idea of a howling mob of feminists guillotining him? Come on.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
I saw Avengers 2 last night with a friend. After a day to let everything settle, I can now give a susinct opinion on the film. And I'll do my best to avoid any provocation. This first post will be non-spoilers. Watching this film was like watching Joss Whedon perform a card trick. He's moving way too many cards way too fast but if you look close enough, you realize that the Ace of Spades was up his sleeve the whole drat time. My friend left confused because the parts she found enjoyable even I agreed were legitimately enjoyable. But the problem with this film is that there's way too many elements crammed into it and Whedon exacerbates the problem by moving things so fast to keep us off-balance. If us as the audience actually too the time to link all the plot elements together, we'd get disoriented real quick. Whedon moves the film quickly with his trademark "clever" dialouge and characterization and lots and lots of action setpieces to otherwise distract us. Going back to the metaphor, it's all sleight-of-hand in order to trick us into thinking it's a good movie, it's blatant manipulation. Now if I had to compare this to a better example of an emsemble superhero action film, I'd compare it to "X-Men: Days of Future Past", directed by Bryan Singer. Singer's an old hand at the ensemble film and where he succedes where Whedon fails is one simple reason: prioritization. Singer probably had it worse than Whedon in reguards to characters and plot elements--"Days of Future Past" included not only the casts from two different sequels but also brand new characters and time travel. This would be a giant disaster if Singer didn't prioritize everything correctly. Wolverine is our protagonist by virtue of being our point-of-view character, the main conflict is between Professor X's now disalousioned idealism vs Magneto's violent pragmatism and Mystique is the catalyst to drive the overal narrative. The time-travel element is there primarily to establish the stakes--if Wolverine isn't succesful in his mission, then mutankind is doomed, end of story, and the future scenes are inter-sped within the climax with the right ammount of balance to remind us of those stakes. Not every character gets equal focus but that's good because those who do get the most focus are the ones whose actions drive the narrative. Compare that to "Avengers 2" where, along with the six characters from the first film, Whedon introduces three new characters. I get it how all the members of the Avengers are supposed to be equal, but the problem is the runtime constraints of film--there's just not enough time to where it'd be feasble to develop equal development to everyone. The result is that most of the development feels token or compressed. In fact, "compressed" is a good way to describe this film. Whedon is way too busy trying to cram too much poo poo so instead he tries to distract us with as much posturing, snappy dialouge, and cool setpieces as possible. I've heard a lot of grumblings about this film and I hope this is the moment where people finaly realize how Whedon's been pulling a fast one on us the entire time. Also how he's not as clever as he or we think he is, he really isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Is Avengers 2 watchable for someone who hasn't seen a Marvel Movie after Iron Man 3?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Early impressions said that it suffers the Iron Man 2 effect where it just spins its wheels just to set up the next decade of the movieverse they have rather than just telling a self-contained story. Would you say that's accurate? Partial? I honestly really don't care to see the film any time soon. I'm kind of burnt out of the Marvel movies since it seems like the creative team have to follow extreme mandates from Marvel and the result feels like a movie made in a factory.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Is Avengers 2 watchable for someone who hasn't seen a Marvel Movie after Iron Man 3? Disclaimer: I am not a Whedon fan. It's not from dislike of his works, but because I haven't really seen any them and I can't call myself a fan of something I haven't seen for myself. Point is I am trying to be as unbiased as I can. Anyway, I heard stories about Whedon having to work with Marvel executives wanting the movie to have certain elements and things done, and that company pressure is pushing Whedon away from MCU stuff in general. I don't know the specifics about what went on, but it sounds like the usual company stifling the artistic vision of the director. I could also be wrong and misinformed.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
So part two, Spoilers! I really, really enjoyed the new dynamic between Black Widow/Natasha Romanov and Hulk/Bruce Banner. We have two persons who could not be more different but form some sort of intimate bond by virtue of being deeply damaged people. Both my friend and I thought the scenes of them together were really touching. Unfortunatley, there's a lot of tell in this film. Like Natasha explains to Bruce under no uncertain terms that she can't have children, that the agency she worked with in Russia performed a sterilization process because children would be a distraction for them as operatives. Or how the Maximov Twins-I'm sorry, Quicksilver and Scarlett Witch, explain to Ultron, in detail, how their home was shelled and how they found Stark's name on one of the shells. First rule of storytelling--show, don't tell. Or if you can't show, then don't over-tell. Natasha should've been vauge towards Bruce how "the agency saw children as an unecessary distraction", Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch should've just said how the shells that killed their family and destroyed their home read "Stark". That would've been a lot less tell and probably would've freeded up more time for actual development. But the first sign of bad storytelling is telling over showing. Oh, and, I wasn't just comparing this film against "Days of Future Past" for nothing--let's talk about Pietro Maxamov/Quicksilver. In "Days of Future Past", Quicksilver was in there ten or fifteen minutes, tops and his scene was the most memorable in the whole drat film. Quicksilver in "Avengers 2" was present throughout the whole drat film and yet he's not as memorable as the Quicksilver in the X-Men film. And as I said before, Singer prioritizes where Whedon doesn't. The issue with quick characters is that because they can move really fast, they have the potential to solve whatever problem exists within the story before the end. Realizing this, Singer only has Quicksiver around for ten or fifteen minutes and he's only there to break out Magneto, aka his long-lost father. What does Whedon do? Have him around for the whole drat film before taking a drat minigun to the chest. We all knew someone was gonna die in this film, Whedon's shtick is to sacrifice someone for the sake of "drama". If I was paying attention, I would've figured out way ahead of time that it was Quicksilver because he's incidental to the cast and because his powers would make the conflict even more inconsequential so to tie up loose ends, he had to die. I don't think we're gonna see him in "Infintiy War" to be honest. And that just about does it. Long story short, this movie sucks and Whedon is a hack. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Is Avengers 2 watchable for someone who hasn't seen a Marvel Movie after Iron Man 3? Jimbot posted:Early impressions said that it suffers the Iron Man 2 effect where it just spins its wheels just to set up the next decade of the movieverse they have rather than just telling a self-contained story. Would you say that's accurate? Partial? I honestly really don't care to see the film any time soon. I'm kind of burnt out of the Marvel movies since it seems like the creative team have to follow extreme mandates from Marvel and the result feels like a movie made in a factory.  I didn't see "Iron Man 2", but yeah, there's a lot of that going on in this film. Since the first "Avengers", the Marvel Studios films have been hinting towards Thanos, the Infinity Stones, and the Gauntlet. Really, it's all just a bunch of plot devices and the stones have appeared in one form or another throughout the films (the Tessaract from "Iron Man" to "Avengers" and the various stones throughout the phase two films). An infinity stone shows up and yeah, it's just another plot device and it's presence is only there to to bring about The Vision who's literally a walking, talking deus ex machina. If this film isn't compressing itself, it's busy leading into the huge two-parter coming in 2018.I say gently caress that poo poo. I'm looking forward to seeing Batman and Superman beat the poo poo out of eachother in 2016. Yeah, "Man of Steel" was terrible but I don't care, it's Batman vs Superman, it's the fight of the drat century and it's going to be glorious. Good or bad will yet to be seen. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 04:44 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
EDIT: sorry, double-post.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Mraagvpeine posted:Disclaimer: I am not a Whedon fan. It's not from dislike of his works, but because I haven't really seen any them and I can't call myself a fan of something I haven't seen for myself. Point is I am trying to be as unbiased as I can. Yeah, the movie was originally a 2.5 hour cut with a lot more character DO-RA-MA in it, and they made Whedon cut that stuff down to the bare minimum with greater focus on the action and plot. That's why he's said he won't be working on future Avengers films. His beautiful, brilliant character angst was cut. What remains in the film is like all Whedon character drama: effective if you're 13, eye-rolling if you're not. Thank christ, frankly. Avengers 2 was a fine movie, but it was actively worsened by his terrible tone-less dialogue. (One of the greatest things about the first Avengers film was how heavily Whedon's "writing voice" was reined in, so everyone still sounded like themselves. In Avengers 2, he ran hog-wild and even Captain Goddamn America sounds like Joss Fuckin' Whedon. Seriously, that guy writes every single character to sound like a disaffected snarky teenager no matter who they are or where they're from in every single one of his works, and It's Always Been Awful.) Anyway, having seen a giant swath of his past work, I am 110% certain that if the movie was 3.5 hours long, it wouldn't have made the character writing any better or the thematic core any deeper or whatever he was going on about. Whedon has never written convincingly human characters, and he's never written anything with a notable level of depth either. That's just my feelings, of course.  Not a fan of the Whedon.
Jay O fucked around with this message at 05:12 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Jay O posted:Yeah, the movie was originally a 2.5 hour cut with a lot more character DO-RA-MA in it, and they made Whedon cut that stuff down to the bare minimum with greater focus on the action and plot. That's why he's said he won't be working on future Avengers films. His beautiful, brilliant character angst was cut. What remains in the film is like all Whedon character drama: effective if you're 13, eye-rolling if you're not.  It's interesting how you latched onto his dialouge so much, though. I mean, my points of reference for Whedon are only Firefly and these two films so I'm not too aware of his conventions so it's why I"m latching on to the bigger problems like his terrible pacing and compression. That whole "language" running gag got really old quick, it just felt really, really petty. Now that you brought it up, it does feel very teenager-y. EDIT: drat, I think I've been mispelling his name... Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 05:30 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Jay O posted:Yeah, the movie was originally a 2.5 hour cut with a lot more character DO-RA-MA in it, and they made Whedon cut that stuff down to the bare minimum with greater focus on the action and plot. That's why he's said he won't be working on future Avengers films. His beautiful, brilliant character angst was cut. What remains in the film is like all Whedon character drama: effective if you're 13, eye-rolling if you're not. I really enjoyed Age of Ultron, but I fully agree that it got way too heavy-handed with the Whedonisms in the dialogue.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Jsor posted:Is Avengers 2 watchable for someone who hasn't seen a Marvel Movie after Iron Man 3? Avengers 2 is the point where that finally becomes a problem. Like, you can see literally any other Marvel movie as your first Marvel movie and still get a complete story. They're not all equally good, and there are running threads throughout the movies that you wouldn't pick up on if any given movie is your first, but otherwise the movies have all done a rather stellar job of being good movies both on their own and contributing to the larger movieverse. Avengers 2 ditches that and depends entirely on the audience having watched, at the very least, Avengers 1 so you'd know what Loki's staff is, Captain America 2 so you'd know about Shield being destroyed while Hydra is still on the loose, and Guardians of the Galaxy so you'd know the finer details of the Infinity Stones. If you haven't watched those films, you're hosed, as they don't spend any time explaining anything that was explained in those movies, which is a problem because they all have things to contribute to this movie that you wouldn't know about if you'd just watched this movie. So, yeah, ship has finally sailed, if you're not onboard with the Marvel movies then it's gonna be time consuming to catch up. Take up at least three whole movie nights. Jay O posted:Yeah, the movie was originally a 2.5 hour cut with a lot more character DO-RA-MA in it, and they made Whedon cut that stuff down to the bare minimum with greater focus on the action and plot. And thank god they did. Benny's right, there's way too much tell and not nearly enough show to make for a interesting movie. It's written like a comic book. It's staged like a comic book. The only time the movie is visually interesting is when it's a just-barely-moving two page comic book spread, otherwise it's talking heads that should have word balloons beside them stuffed with way, way too much dialouge. It's still not tipping over into outright "bad" movie making but it's too mechanical and shallow for me to call it "good" either. It's still entertaining, though, and it didn't drive me nearly as crazy as the first one did. Maybe I just care less? 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
I liked how Thor jumped in the magic preview pool to watch teaser trailers for Avengers 3 and Ragnarok. I suppose I should say that I enjoyed the film. It's nowhere near the best of the Marvel films (First Avenger still my personal favorite) and it crams way too much stuff in that doesn't need to be there, but I still liked it. James Spader was loving fantastic whenever Ultron was on screen, and I'd take a whole film of him acting like a douchebag over pansy rear end Loki. I did feel like characters kept popping in and out without warning however. Like Vision showing up as a major plot point and then bamfing out of the film for fifteen minutes at a time. He literally only does on plot relevant thing and even that is only there to tie up the loose end of Ultron's escape route. Other stuff like the Korean scientist lady or Stellen Skarsgaard's character just arbitrarily showing up and leaving. Also, how come War Machine got to make a midair combat cameo but Falcon didn't? Can't have more than two black guys on screen at once? Also, hello Helicarrier ex machina. What I'm saying is there is a lot to like in the film if you're up for big explosions and occasionally good dialogue and chemistry between actors, but you need a lot of faith and suspension of disbelief. EDIT: Also, Jim Stirling put his metal slug video back up. It wasn't a copyright takedown, he just hosed up his recording and did it over again. Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 05:47 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:Avengers 2 ditches that and depends entirely on the audience having watched, at the very least, Avengers 1 so you'd know what Loki's staff is, Captain America 2 so you'd know about Shield being destroyed while Hydra is still on the loose, and Guardians of the Galaxy so you'd know the finer details of the Infinity Stones. If you haven't watched those films, you're hosed, as they don't spend any time explaining anything that was explained in those movies, which is a problem because they all have things to contribute to this movie that you wouldn't know about if you'd just watched this movie. I'd disagree on the third one, just because there's enough on its own merit to know that Infinity Stones are bad and we've seen several of them do terrible things in the forms of Loki's Scepter and the Tessaract.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:Avengers 2 is the point where that finally becomes a problem.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Could somebody explain to me the appeal (or lack thereof) of Joss Whedon? I saw the first Avengers film, and I've caught parts of Firefly and Dollhouse. I thought Avengers was okay, but none of his television work really held my interest. At the same time, there was nothing that made me think his writing was really awful, but in either case, it's just that I haven't had much exposure to it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
He's alright but he has obsessive weird fans.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
It is honestly amazing to think of how MANY characters have a zinger, from every big name to Nick Fury, who has about ten minutes in the movie and introduces himself with one, to Baron Strucker with five minutes onscreen tops squeezing a laffer in there, to his subordinate whose only line is a gag. The only character I didn't dislike with this was Ultron, because it's naturally funny for a menacing psychopathic robot to have a casual manner of speech, and it was so refreshing to have a superpower Bad Guy in a Marvel studios movie that had character besides grimmy grim, exceptions being Loki and mayyyybe Red Skull. In Avengers 1 the one that bugged me the most was Thor's "he's adopted" line, and this one was packed full of lines like those. It's getting to the point where I wonder if Whedon has some weird insecurity that makes him constantly show how clever he can be, all the time...non-stop. The one that actually made me laugh though was Ultron's completly exasperated "for GOD'S SAKE" after Hulk leapt into his escaping plane.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
I really like Buffy and Angel, and thought those both did some interesting, funny, thought provoking, and important things for television, but haven't been able to get into his other work. I'm not sure I'd go as far as JO and say his character drama is bad, necessarily, it can be good and bad like anything else. It does derive heavily from the Soap Opera school, though, by his own admission, so if you don't like that sort of thing it will bug you. I thought there was a lot of good stuff (and a lot of missteps) in Buffy/Angel. I know that's a really wishy-washy analysis, but we could be here for hours dissecting Buffy or whatever and this isn't really the thread for a 3 page Whedon effortpost. The issue with his works -- which you'll see if you watch more than one in any capacity, is his character voice. Whedon has this problem where every character is Joss Whedon. Even the characters that aren't Joss Whedon will occasionally drop their facade to become Joss Whedon. I don't mean that in a "characters are self-insert fanfic OCs for Joss Whedon." I mean that Whedon has this voice that is very particular to his writing style that all characters exhibit. This sort of glib, inexact, snarky voice. Like if every character got possessed by Spiderman or your other favorite snarky action hero for 10 seconds every 15 minutes. I really think you could make an extremely hard quiz called "match the one-liner to the Whedon character" and anyone who hasn't seen all his works 6 times would have no loving chance. It's really bad.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
I've been burnt out on Marvel Movies after being satisfied with Guardians of the Galaxy so I didn't follow any news for a while. I think it helped because I came in with no expectations for Age of Ultron so I was able to enjoy it for what it is and hey, it got me to watch Daredevil on Netflix to soothe that comic book hero itch and I'm glad. Daredevil is good.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Whedon came along at a special time in broadcast television where the conventions and constraints of the form were becoming tired but before anyone was willing to replace them with anything genuinely new. He's an expert at diagnosing and subverting the major narrative beats and structures of conventional tv and movies, but he can't invent anything new, really. He's a third-generation tv writer and was a company man for a few major studios for like 15 years before he let all his contempt for mass media out in Buffy and then Angel. In some ways the world has moved past what he does best, in that tv trying all kinds of weird poo poo that nobody could have imagined in 1999 and so building on the ashes he made by knocking cliche. He is a man out of time, but able to make a by-the-numbers blockbuster slightly more clever than anyone else in the studio would think to do. The more rigidly conventional and traditionally safe the genre, the better he does. So comic-book franchises are pretty perfect for him, really, in that there are many rules he must follow but can bend in clever ways. There's always a lot of hatred for suits and investors in his stuff, though. I can't imagine it feels good to have such little creative control over your work.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Jsor posted:The issue with his works -- which you'll see if you watch more than one in any capacity, is his character voice. Honestly I get far more annoyed by his blocking and camera work than his writing. He's a very flat film maker, he films a lot of very basic "talking head" scenes where character's spacial relation to each other doesn't matter, what they're doing doesn't matter, the blocking is extremely basic "go here, then there, sit down, stand up", it's not motivated by action, there are almost no interesting camera angles, no playing around with the language of film to tell the story, it's all dialogue. The specific scene I'm thinking of is when Tony and Fury are talking in the barn. Tony kinda wanders around the tractor, hovers around it, picks up a wrench at one point, there are a couple of points where he gets mad at Fury but he doesn't move very far away from that tractor, and Fury comes out of the shadows and stands by, then sits, then stands again when saying something dramatic. The blocking is completely unmotivated, and the cameras are just kinda lazily hovering around, lots of medium shot reverse shot using lots of different angles from different cameras to create variety. It's sterile and boring, and Whedon does it all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Whedon is a tv director who describes television as radio with pictures. A weird choice for someone to make your action movie, now that I think about it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Now you're just making me sad that Edgar Wright left Ant Man. That dude is a genius with his camera work.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
How did James Gunn get a marvel movie again? He's the most interesting director they'll ever let in, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
He made a movie with Nathan Fillion in it that wasn't poo poo? Slither is awesome. It used to freak me the gently caress out with the exploding worm lady, but then I grew a sense of humor.
Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 06:58 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Whedon is a tv director who describes television as radio with pictures. A weird choice for someone to make your action movie, now that I think about it. I honestly think Michael Bay is a better movie director than Joss Whedon. Here's my thesis video (not actually mine but it says what I want to say) Arcsquad12 posted:Now you're just making me sad that Edgar Wright left Ant Man. That dude is a genius with his camera work. I think Ant Man's gonna be alright
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Whedon is a tv director who describes television as radio with pictures. A weird choice for someone to make your action movie, now that I think about it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Jay O posted:Yeah, the movie was originally a 2.5 hour cut with a lot more character DO-RA-MA in it, and they made Whedon cut that stuff down to the bare minimum with greater focus on the action and plot. That's why he's said he won't be working on future Avengers films. His beautiful, brilliant character angst was cut. What remains in the film is like all Whedon character drama: effective if you're 13, eye-rolling if you're not. This is probably for the best. I like Whedon, but it would have been bad to have him get any more control of one of these films. I have a feeling that they will find someone as good or better to do the next one (probably better, since Disney/Marvel is richer than god at the moment.)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Good thing the Russo Bros seem better at doing the job than Joss, like in Winter Soldier everyone has a unique personality and its not all loving quips. I mean I really enjoyed AOU, but I'm glad Joss is done with the MCU. Oh and I forgot something. When Scarlet Witch fucks with Black Window's head, one of her visions is being wheeled down the halls of a hospital and even seeing surgical tools. So we know she's had surgery done without her consent, why does she need to go into detail with Bruce about something so very, very traumatic when she just re-lived it? Why the gently caress does Whedon show us one moment and then explain the next? It's because he's a hack who thinks about as much for his audience as he does for his own characters which is gently caress all. Seriously, gently caress that guy, I'm pissed now. Benny the Snake fucked around with this message at 08:22 on May 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
Benny the Snake posted:Wait, he's not doing Infinity War? Yeah, he's dropping out. I'm glad the russos are gonna get a turn but I'd like to see other directors get a chance at making marvel films too. Imagine what a lord & miller marvel film would turn out like. Too bad about Wright leaving the ant man project tho. I know they're still using almost all of the script he wrote but, idk, he's just so good at bringing a particular charm to his films that I don't see at all in the trailers.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2015 08:18
|
|
