|
Thor is a coming of age story for Thor the thousand year old moody teenager.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Honestly all his trailers and intro credits are consistently awesome and better than the films they represent. Like The Dawn of the Dead intro/intro credits were more memorable than most of the film itself. Same with 300 and its trailer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
I know it's standard movie practise that if you can't see it, it's not happening, but I was pretty amazed at the weirdo neighbour's sound-proof curtain in The Watch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Thor is a coming of age story for Thor the thousand year old moody teenager. Needs more origin imo. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Rysithusiku posted:Needs more origin imo. Well, to be fair it's bark was worse than its bite. I'd probably be thor too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Beef Jerky Robot posted:the watchmen movie fixes the terrible climax of the book so good on ya zack attack The original ending is admittedly very silly but a giant mutant space squid surrounded by mountains of corpses is a lot more interesting to me, both as a concept and an image, than fake dr.atom vaporizing everybody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
I like most things about most Zack Snyder movies, but the final fight between Ozy and Night Owl and Rorschach fell kinda flat for me. In the comic it was very simple and very brutal for it, there was just no way these two guys were a match for Adrian "Manners" Veidt. In the movie they all just turned into Spartans. I guess it was also meant to tip off the slower people in the audience that Veidt was the one who killed the Comedian because the way he fought.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:The original ending is admittedly very silly but a giant mutant space squid surrounded by mountains of corpses is a lot more interesting to me, both as a concept and an image, than fake dr.atom vaporizing everybody. It was basically the same ending: humanity persuaded to work together by the appearance of an antipathetic outside force. Which you prefer probably depends on whether you think the Russians were more likely to cooperate with America in the face of a rogue god or a ten ton vagina dropped on Times Square.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It was basically the same ending: humanity persuaded to work together by the appearance of an antipathetic outside force. Which you prefer probably depends on whether you think the Russians were more likely to cooperate with America in the face of a rogue god or a ten ton vagina dropped on Times Square. The way I remember most complaints it's that the rogue god was working for the Americans, so the Russians would carry a grudge about that. Which I don't agree with. Manhatten's rampage would have served as a big fat piece of humble pie for Nixon, and nobody needed to eat humble pie more than him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The way I remember most complaints it's that the rogue god was working for the Americans, so the Russians would carry a grudge about that. Yes, but the Russians were being held in check by fear of Manhattan. The question is, would they back down because America suddenly lost its deterrent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Yes, but the Russians were being held in check by fear of Manhattan. The question is, would they back down because America suddenly lost its deterrent? To my understanding, the fundamental problem of the Cold War was that these two superpowers were caught in a game of empty posturing. Basically, Ozy's scheme caused America to blink first, the idea being that once the tension was relieved both sides would realize what a stupid conflict it was to begin with. Of course this doesn't hold up if Russia really was interested in conquering the world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Jedit posted:It was basically the same ending: humanity persuaded to work together by the appearance of an antipathetic outside force. Which you prefer probably depends on whether you think the Russians were more likely to cooperate with America in the face of a rogue god or a ten ton vagina dropped on Times Square. Yeah, they both work. The comic plan probably makes more sense in the long run, since the idea is that it 'proves' to humanity that they aren't alone in the universe. Manhattan watching over everybody only really works until people start wondering if he's still there. But in the short term at least the film plan spreads the destruction evenly, it's harder to imagine all countries coming together if only New York was actually destroyed and only America had access to the supposed alien remains. In any case Ozy only felt he needed a short term distraction anyway. He had to do something to get everyone to back down from the imminent conflict, but his long term plan was always based on cheap renewable energy and providing 'infinite resources' in order to make the idea of war obsolete. He just knew he would never have the chance to enact it without a dramatic event to get everyone to back down from the brink.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 14:23
|
|
|
snergle posted:I cant wait for anderson to ruin star trek some how. Then all of scifi will have felt his Here's my Star Trek bitch - the Kobayashi Maru. First featured in Wrath of Khan in 1982 where we discover Kirk had cheated his way out of an unwinnable test while still a cadet and made his way into legend. It also comes up 27 years late in the reboot where we finally get to see how Kirk did it. How did he cheat Starfleet? How did he first show his tactical genius which lead to him being awarded for original thinking while still a cadet? With almost 30 years to think about it, they were going to come up with something really loving cool, right? Nope. We get this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDg674aS-F4&t=28s It's just so obvious and stupid. Everything goes black and resets and huge letters, fifty feet tall and on fire, appear over Kirk's heading saying "LOOK AT ME, I'M CHEATING!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:02
|
|
writing and feel the hate I do.
|
Were the new star trek movies really meant to connect to the show? Christ how do you people keep all this poo poo straight? I only watch good poo poo where the writers paint themselves into corners and then reboot so they can do it again but with younger actors and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Marxism posted:Were the new star trek movies really meant to connect to the show? Christ how do you people keep all this poo poo straight? I only watch good poo poo where the writers paint themselves into corners and then reboot so they can do it again but with younger actors and poo poo. The new movies were more tie-ins to the old movies. It was kinda fun for the first one because it was a reboot but different because it was still technically in the same continuity. The second one was really bad because instead of doing something new and fun they just remade the best of the original movies but made it far worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Here's my Star Trek bitch - the Kobayashi Maru. I do really like the whole "Jim, their shields are still up" "are they?" interaction, but yeah it was typical Hollywood overdoing it to be too  and making it unrealistic.He may as well have just worn a T-shirt to the tribunal that said "I cheated". How did he not expect to get court martial-ed over that? The original Kirk sounded like he was being pretty clever, but in the reboot the only reason that Kirk doesn't get kicked out of starfleet forever and never becomes a captain is because of an extremely coincidental emergency? Comeon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
I think they were really asking for it by making everyone take an un-passable test. WHO CHEATED FIRST??
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:I think they were really asking for it by making everyone take an un-passable test. I think they were supposed to learn about failure or something and Kirk's ego couldn't take it. Tell Geordi to get in that tube and take a lethal dose of rads for the team was the sequel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I think they were supposed to learn about failure or something and Kirk's ego couldn't take it. According to the film it was to teach you that you wouldn't always win and to know fear of defeat or w/e. That's completely pointless though if you already know the test is unwinnable beforehand though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
jabby posted:Yeah, they both work. The comic plan probably makes more sense in the long run, since the idea is that it 'proves' to humanity that they aren't alone in the universe. Manhattan watching over everybody only really works until people start wondering if he's still there. But in the short term at least the film plan spreads the destruction evenly, it's harder to imagine all countries coming together if only New York was actually destroyed and only America had access to the supposed alien remains. The Watchmen movie proved that the comic book movie industry as a whole isn't ready for a Watchmen movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
The thing I didn't like about the Watchmen movie was that it treated violence as cool, as something to be lingered over in salivating slo-mo while like a woman's calf muscle explodes as a bullet rips through it or captain america rapes the prom queen in the rec room. If Watchmen takes place in a world where violence isn't horrifying then there's no point, there's no satire, it's just R-rated Batman Forever
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
I thought it did the opposite to be honest. Instead of violence being short and quick you were forced to stare at it in gross discomfort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:I thought it did the opposite to be honest. Instead of violence being short and quick you were forced to stare at it in gross discomfort. I can not stand the casual killing of bad guys. Hero protagonist gunning down waves of faceless baddies is repugnant and has real world repercussions. poo poo's practically illegal in some European countries. Give me a dude bleeding out and mewling for his life with some empathy. Make the audience suffer if you have to kill a character. Life ain't cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:Here's my Star Trek bitch - the Kobayashi Maru. One of the old star trek novels had a plot that was basically 'the crew sits down and talks about how they dealt with the Kobayashi Maru'. In that book, the test treated the Klingon ships like they were a hydra; each ship you kill would result in two more ships warping in. In the book, Kirk hacked the Klingon ships to recognize 'James Tiberius Kirk' as the best friend a Klingon could have, and of course they will aid in the rescue mission. Scottys was basically "I used a known bug in the simulation to transport cans of antimatter into their bridge, and kept doing so until the sheer number of ships overwhelmed our transporters" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kobayashi_Maru_(Star_Trek_novel)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:I can not stand the casual killing of bad guys. The watchmen aren't exactly good guys
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:The watchmen aren't exactly good guys That wasn't my beef. It's more of a general irritation about action movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:The thing I didn't like about the Watchmen movie was that it treated violence as cool, as something to be lingered over in salivating slo-mo while like a woman's calf muscle explodes as a bullet rips through it or captain america rapes the prom queen in the rec room. If Watchmen takes place in a world where violence isn't horrifying then there's no point, there's no satire, it's just R-rated Batman Forever Also cutting "Noting ever ends, Adrian" is inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
NorgLyle posted:In addition to cutting the two best pieces of Alan Moore's writing for no drat reason from the movie Would one of those be Rorschach's interview with the psychiatrist, the part where he discusses when he became who he was? Why they felt the need to change even one word of that is beyond me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Lemon posted:Would one of those be Rorschach's interview with the psychiatrist, the part where he discusses when he became who he was? Why they felt the need to change even one word of that is beyond me. quote:Stood in firelight, sweltering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
EmmyOk posted:I thought it did the opposite to be honest. Instead of violence being short and quick you were forced to stare at it in gross discomfort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
NorgLyle posted:The thing that made me nuts about the Watchmen movie was that, in order to make all the flashy eye candy big scenes fit into a feature length film they had to literally cut the heart out of the book. In addition to cutting the two best pieces of Alan Moore's writing for no drat reason from the movie, the filmmakers removed basically all the minor characters who, in the climax of the story are, by their actions, refuting both Rorschach's nihilism and Adrian's utilitarianism. It's actually really important for the book and having them absent from the movie so you can fit in Big Figure is horrible. Did you watch the directors cut? I'm pretty sure 'nothing ever ends' is in there, as well as Tales of the Black Freighter and a couple of the minor characters you talk about. Also I kind of liked the change to how Rorschach killed his first criminal. After all he is supposed to be the ultimate moral absolutist, if he felt the guy had to die why wouldn't he do it himself? Chaining him up and setting the building on fire to see if he can escape just seems too Jigsaw-like. If he wanted him dead it seems out of character to leave it up to the criminal himself. EDIT: Actually I might be thinking of the animated version of the comic for the 'nothing ever ends' line. jabby has a new favorite as of 22:13 on Jul 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
I watched watchmen on a plane, and isn't there a scene where two heroes are walking home and they're randomly attacked in an alley by a gang, and then there's like 5 solid minutes of them glamorously spin-kicking the teeth out of their mouths and shattering their limbs and I think straight up killing a bunch of them, all in super-badass slow motion. The gang of faceless mooks who are presumably just trying to mug some randoms bviously keep suicidially charging one by one at them, after like 5 of their buddies have been completely mutilated. I'm sure there's a scene later on when a guy announces "actually though violence has real consequences and is bad" though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:I watched watchmen on a plane, and isn't there a scene where two heroes are walking home and they're randomly attacked in an alley by a gang, and then there's like 5 solid minutes of them glamorously spin-kicking the teeth out of their mouths and shattering their limbs and I think straight up killing a bunch of them, all in super-badass slow motion. The gang of faceless mooks who are presumably just trying to mug some randoms bviously keep suicidially charging one by one at them, after like 5 of their buddies have been completely mutilated. Yes, a gang tries to mug/kill them and they straight up kill half the members and brutally beat the rest in slow motion. Then they casually stroll off to continue their day chatting about how exhilarating it was to fight crime again after all these years. Whether you see that as glamorizing violence or a harsh take on what kind of psychopaths would actually want to become costumed heroes kind of depends on your perspective. Later in the film it's demonstrated that Rorschach putting a gang member's cousin in a wheelchair indirectly causes the death of the original Night Owl, and that the previous actions of the Watchmen have caused riots among the population. I wouldn't say that overall the film presents the actions of the 'heroes' as being a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Magnus Manfist posted:I watched watchmen on a plane, and isn't there a scene where two heroes are walking home and they're randomly attacked in an alley by a gang, and then there's like 5 solid minutes of them glamorously spin-kicking the teeth out of their mouths and shattering their limbs and I think straight up killing a bunch of them, all in super-badass slow motion. The gang of faceless mooks who are presumably just trying to mug some randoms bviously keep suicidially charging one by one at them, after like 5 of their buddies have been completely mutilated. It's in the book. It's part of the whole thing where Night Owl and Silk Specter can't have sex unless they're doing super hero stuff. Also best interpretation of Watchmen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
jabby posted:Also I kind of liked the change to how Rorschach killed his first criminal. After all he is supposed to be the ultimate moral absolutist, if he felt the guy had to die why wouldn't he do it himself? Chaining him up and setting the building on fire to see if he can escape just seems too Jigsaw-like. If he wanted him dead it seems out of character to leave it up to the criminal himself. jabby posted:Yes, a gang tries to mug/kill them and they straight up kill half the members and brutally beat the rest in slow motion. Then they casually stroll off to continue their day chatting about how exhilarating it was to fight crime again after all these years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
The first two harry potter movies were on tv last week and tonight, it's a shame how underutilized John Cleese is, I know it's a cameo but would it have killed them to have more than one joke for two movies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:He wants him dead, but he's also insane and wants to see him burn alive, or know he's mutilating himself to get out. And he waits outside for an hour, I don't think the implication is if the guy did saw off his hand and stumbled out, Rorschach would let him go. He's all about psychologically terrorizing criminals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
I just watched "Never Let Me Go" and I think I just didn't get it. The main characters are all clones that are raised in boarding school to one day have their organs harvested. They're all well aware of this, but never really seem to care. They're all worried and clearly don't want to sacrifice their lives. They're completely the same as a normal person and there's basically nothing keeping them in line. At no point in the movie does anyone even mention the idea of running, hiding, fleeing the country, getting a new identity, deliberately making their organs unusable, suicide out of pure spite, or anything except calmly donating their organs until they die. I know it's not the point of the story, but it seems like a major thing is being ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:The first two harry potter movies were on tv last week and tonight, it's a shame how underutilized John Cleese is, I know it's a cameo but would it have killed them to have more than one joke for two movies? The character even gets a bigger subplot in one of the later books but its completely cut out of the movies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Kurtofan posted:The first two harry potter movies were on tv last week and tonight, it's a shame how underutilized John Cleese is, I know it's a cameo but would it have killed them to have more than one joke for two movies? They totally underused the ghosts in general in the films. But then, I guess they had to cut a lot from some of them to make them manageable lengths. The ghosts were some of the more interesting parts of Hogwarts. The thing that bothered me about the HP films was the patronuses. Patroni. Patronii? Patronodes? I don't know anyway - in the book they were described as glowing lights to start off with, but later as gllowing animals attacking the dementors. IN the film they're just boring glowy lights when they're actually used in a fight, I would have loved to see the end of Azkaban having a charging stag mowing down dementors left and right (and indeed the final battle of Deathly Hallows could have had the patronus legions to go with the other funky defences) but noooo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 23:12
|
|