|
this is your chance to surrender bro
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:this is your chance to
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I'm not enough of a dick that I'd share the contents of PMs. Rest assured he has made some interesting progress. He has decided that fascism is worse than democracy, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Things are never actually up to chance. There's only ever the sense that anyone can die - in reality it's all planned out by skilled artists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
I'm kinda sad. Baron's stance on movies was so head-spinningly contradictory that it was novel. Like, if your position is that movies can be anything but symbolic...how do you even parse what a movie (or a picture for that matter) is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Danger posted:I'm kinda sad. Baron's stance on movies was so head-spinningly contradictory that it was novel. Like, if your position is that movies can be anything but symbolic...how do you even parse what a movie (or a picture for that matter) is? It was kinda cool and fascinating, and it was nice to see people here bewildered for a totally unusual reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
I loved the parts where it was like he might kinda start to get it but then NOPE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Does this mean we can talk about the movie now? I wasn't thrilled with Affleck being cast but I'm actually starting to see it. He's been pretty good in "The Town" and "Gone Girl" and actually wasn't even terrible in "Daredevil". I loved Man Of Steel but still feel like jamming Batman and Superman together into that universe is too soon. I'd like to see one Affleck Batman movie and one more Superman film setting it all up and establishing the heroes so my expectations for this are kind of low. I'm afraid it's going to be just a noisy, disjointed mess, especially with Aquaman and WW thrown in. Not saying I need more origins, just more of a set up. DKR, which this film is obviously borrowing from, worked because it was self contained and sort of one shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I understand what you're saying and maybe this isn't a direct reply but the idea that we need a movie just to set up another movie...no thank you!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'm afraid it's going to be just a noisy, disjointed mess, especially with Aquaman and WW thrown in. Not saying I need more origins, just more of a set up. DKR, which this film is obviously borrowing from, worked because it was self contained and sort of one shot. I think WW and AquaMan are literally pre-credit cameos, for the most part. WW might have more, but she'll be in media res, rather than forcing some ten minute origin/introduction story into the movie. It doesn't sound like it'll be disjointed. They'll be shown to exist and act in this, and then they can get expanded upon in their own films. BvS IS the establishing movie for Batman, which is more than fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Aquaman and Flash are in the film for maybe 10 seconds apiece and nobody interacts with them. Source: ComicBookMovieRumoursFromMyBHole.com
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I understand what you're saying and maybe this isn't a direct reply but the idea that we need a movie just to set up another movie...no thank you!!! I meant more of a Superman or an Affleck Batman movie that were self contained. Man of Steel was basically "Superman Begins", so a sequel that actually had him being Superman and dealing with Luthor or Braniac or something might help, just to establish the character of Superman. Similarly, a Batman movie along the lines of, say, No Man's Land could be a Batman movie by itself but still set the table for BvS. I don't want "set up" movies for the sake of it. It just feels rushed. TDKR was a self contained reboot that already drew off of the history and a working knowledge of the characters, which I suppose is true here also, but the hurry to pair them together seems misguided and shortsighted to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Drifter posted:BvS IS the establishing movie for Batman, which is more than fine. Also, we don't need an establishing movie for Batman, because he's loving Batman. We know who he is. Especially now, with three movies in the past ten years. quote:just to establish the character of Superman. quote:TDKR was a self contained reboot that already drew off of the history and a working knowledge of the characters
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Wonder if they'll ever explain what the deal is with this Batman character. Spiderman, too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I meant more of a Superman or an Affleck Batman movie that were self contained. But you're getting all of those, just AFTER this one. What's the problem, are you somehow going to appreciate Batman less because you didn't see him training as a ninja this goaround? I still don't understand why you want those movies to be first, and seem really bummed that they're not. How is it misguided or shortsighted? I honestly don't get it. You're being shown a potentially intriguing character here interacting with the established world and an already established character, and you're thinking people won't think "my word, what a cool loving character this Batman guy is; I hope he gets his own movie because he's pretty badass here?" And shortsighted? They're literally releasing movies about this character AFTER this one. It's not like he's going away. There are 3 Batman involved or starring movies in the next four or five years. Another Superman one around there. A poo poo ton of other superhero ones after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
The greatest trick Marvel has pulled is this stupid idea that you need a whole movie to set up a character. Many movies set up more than one character, and have them do stuff. It is possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Spiderman, too! I heard his uncle got killed. Not sure though. Definitely need an origin movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
What is the deal with that fantastic family of four? I wonder what their origins are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
PiedPiper posted:I heard his uncle got killed. Not sure though. Definitely need an origin movie. How else would we know how the spider got on his chest?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I meant more of a Superman or an Affleck Batman movie that were self contained. You just need to come to terms with DC having a specific timeline set for the films, and it doesn't use a cookie cutter formula of character movie + character movie + character movie = team up movie. They're taking a different approach. I mean, their superhero films already go against the grain compared to Marvel stock anyways when it comes to tone, aesthetic, and general studio politics. It only seems right for them NOT to ape what Marvel has done. Also, it's funny you suggest that Batman v Superman seems misguided/shortsighted when in really, the idea of having the two most iconic superheroes in a film together has been in the works at WB/DC for the longest time. Batman v Superman also directly follows the narrative of Man of Steel... why does including Batman as a character in the follow up bother people to so much?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Which Suicide Squad members are immortal? I don't know any of them other than Harley and Croc
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Which Suicide Squad members are immortal? I don't know any of them other than Harley and Croc The ones that make money
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The greatest trick Marvel has pulled is this stupid idea that you need a whole movie to set up a character. Many movies set up more than one character, and have them do stuff. It is possible. Like...I don't know where anyone is getting the impression that DC is somehow using a different formula. DC is by and large doing the exact same thing, with BvS kind of deviating a little bit from the formula, vaguely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Most movies set up more than one main character. What Marvel did was to show that using multiple main characters to set up other movies -- which wasn't something anyone was doing before Avengers -- was possible as well. Nobody did that before Avengers? Guess I'll have to tell that to Alien VS Predator, Freddy VS Jason, Godzilla VS Mothra, Ghidorah the Three Headed Monster, Destroy All Monsters, Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula and Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein. They'll be devastated to learn that they didn't do the expanded cinematic universe thing first. SERIOUSLY THIS HAS BEEN A THING SINCE THE 40S! Marvel didn't invent poo poo, they just did what Universal did back in the literal 1940s!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Yeah all Marvel did was be like "We can totally do a Godzilla vs King Kong movie, but we should probably make a Godzilla movie and a King Kong movie first." People criticizing Batman v Superman as jumping the gun aren't acting like you can't poooossibly have a movie without another movie to set it up, but rather the idea that DC is treating this movie as TWO FRANCHISES FINALLY MEET when they've only really established one of them cinematically. I mean sure, everyone knows who Batman is, they could've just opened with this, but they're marketing it like it's been built up to, which it hasn't. I understand it is very cool to act like Marvel movies are terrible in every way but it's not very useful to criticism to act like not following their formula automatically makes a film better, especially when the entire point of that film is copying their formula.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Yeah all Marvel did was be like "We can totally do a Godzilla vs King Kong movie, but we should probably make a Godzilla movie and a King Kong movie first." Which is why I did not cite Godzilla VS King Kong. Instead the ones I cited ARE in the Marvel mold. They made Godzilla movies, they made a Mothra movie. So they threw those two unconnected characters together. Then they had their 'avengers' and brought in Rodan, another solo movie, and had them team up against a great space villain. And Destroy All Monsters FURTHER draws in elements of the greater Cinematic Universe of Toho by bringing in LOTS of other monster movies that had nothing to do with Godzilla before hand. Varan, Baragon, Gorosarus, Manda- all of them either starred in, or were involved in, movies that had nothing to do with Godzilla, Rodan, or Mothra before being made part of Godzilla's universe. And that was just in the 60s! Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman is a sequel to both The Wolf Man and Ghost of Frankenstein, and directly continues both films continuities. The House movies after further that along and Abbot and Costello is a celebration of the entire Universal Monster Universe. Marvel didn't do a single thing that hasn't been done before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Okay, then Marvel reinvigorated the concept. Half of your examples are from the actual 40s, and most of them were long-running standalone franchises who weren't exactly intended from the get-go to cross over to each other until they gained notoriety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Okay, then Marvel reinvigorated the concept. Half of your examples are from the actual 40s, and most of them were long-running standalone franchises who weren't exactly intended from the get-go to cross over to each other until they gained notoriety. Does it really matter when or why they crossed over? Mind you Freddy and Jason have been flirting with each other for decades before Freddy VS Jason came out, and Jason Goes to Hell even ends with a proto Sam Jackson Avengers stinger with Freddy dragging Jason's mask beneath the sand. And that was the 90s. Alien VS Predator had been crossing swords in comics and novels for over a decade by the time the first movie was made, so that's another questionable one, though not to the same extent. All of the Godzilla examples happened in the 60s, and ignorance does not excuse anything. People act like what Marvel has done is fresh and new, when it's really not. It's just the most main stream in the states that we've had.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
I was actually talking to BrianWilly but ok, you win whatever argument is apparently going on.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:What Marvel did was to show that using multiple main characters to set up other movies This isn't what they did. They used individual movies to set up the group movie. Avengers didn't introduce any new characters or solo characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I was actually talking to BrianWilly but ok, you win whatever argument is apparently going on. Cute clip, but as I'm talking about actual movie history and not just nerd bullshit like who can punch harder Batman or his mom, opinion doesn't really have much to do with anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:People criticizing Batman v Superman as jumping the gun aren't acting like you can't poooossibly have a movie without another movie to set it up, but rather the idea that DC is treating this movie as TWO FRANCHISES FINALLY MEET when they've only really established one of them cinematically. I mean sure, everyone knows who Batman is, they could've just opened with this, but they're marketing it like it's been built up to, which it hasn't. quote:especially when the entire point of that film is copying their formula. What?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Cute clip, but as I'm talking about actual movie history and not just nerd bullshit like who can punch harder Batman or his mom, opinion doesn't really have much to do with anything. Batman may punch harder, but his mom can certainly take a pounding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Like, this...Burkion posted:They made Godzilla movies, they made a Mothra movie. So they threw those two unconnected characters together. All three films were made with a guided and deliberate intent to eventually lead into a combined film, the key concept and draw being that this has all been planned out from the start. The kaiju film franchise is the only comparison that comes close; what were originally separate properties have been melded together in the same mythos for so long that no one even associates them as different properties anymore. And any new offerings from the studio -- including the recent Godzilla reboot -- come with the expressed assumption of eventually including other members of this mythos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:There is literally no version of the Captain America story that doesn't involve the Avengers. Give me a break.The only thing about the "Captain America" story that involves the Avengers is the title. Oh this smart arrogant jerk guy just happens to be...TONY STARK'S DAD in what is essentially a winking cameo. Oh this Cosmic Cube McGuffin that Captain America fights for just sits in a room for 70 years doing nothing until Loki comes for it in The Avengers. The "involvement" is minimal, and that's the way Marvel likes it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:There is literally no version of the Captain America story that doesn't involve the Avengers. What? Cap was created 20 years before the Avengers was even an idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
In GonSmithe's college professor analogy, Bifford was told he would have received a C on his essay. But then he was told he failed? In what world is a C a failing grade? Not that I'm arguing that the essay wasn't poo poo or that Bifford hasn't earned an extended probation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:In what world is a C a failing grade?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Perhaps I should have said "narrative?" I'm not talking about individual movies or individual runs of comics. I'm talking about Captain America's Story. He fought in WW2, and then he is always frozen in ice and then always joins the Avengers in the modern day. It's like saying "There is no version of Batman's story that doesn't involve Robin." Sure, Batman started without Robin. Sure, you can tell Batman stories without Robin being mentioned at all. But Robin always gets introduced as Batman's narrative progresses, without exception. You can't really say that Freddy and Jason are as integral to each other's narratives like that, or that the Predators and the xenomorphs function that way (Or, hey, maybe you can, and if so please do) (I assume I wouldn't be the first to note the penis-head/vagina-mouth imagery) (oh my god). Point being, Marvel's shared universe formula isn't something you can just easily compare to studios tossing popular franchises together through the years 'cuz they were popular and kinda similar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Robin is two years younger than the character of Batman. Captain America is twenty years older than the Avengers, and the difference is so huge that the reappearance of the character in the Avengers is like metafiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:41
|
|