|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They just released a supercut that shows the "Road to Civil War" and gives a quick recap of Cap and Tony's evolution. Includes the Netflix shows and Agents of Shield's civil war tie-ins if you don't watch those shows. Agents of SHIELD Is so loving ugly that it makes Winter Soldier look pretty! Lol.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:The vast majority of people who watch these movies you listed think of them as dumb entertainment which they like because they like lasers and explosions and nostalgia, not because they appreciate the alleged hidden complexity in them that can only be sussed out by 30,000-word fan theories. Most film watchers don't care about or even know about "alternative interpretations" (that is to say, poorly substantiated headcanon that always requires belief in a lot of stuff not in evidence) and of those who do, you are correct that most do see them as funny diversions or fun thought exercises. The problem arises when certain individuals get up their own rear end about their Alternative Interpretations to the extent that they forget that these are just silly games and not actually evidence that Darth Jar Jar or Secret Genius Michael Bay is a real thing, let alone that their existence is a material factor as to the quality of the movie. You have a very dim view of movies
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It's not that complicated to understand why people think you're lying. It's first, obviously, because the movies CD feels the most compelled to defend - the prequels, Transformers, Man of Steel, etc - are, among the fanbase outside of this forum, generally considered among to be failed, embarrassing, bottom-tier trash for idiots. The first TRANSFORMERS was an innocuous, fun fantasy romp about a boy and his first car and it was good. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Including AoS is surprising. The Civil War writers apparently had no idea about what happened on the show. Like I've been saying, nobody gives a single gently caress about what happens on AoS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
soapgish posted:The first TRANSFORMERS was an innocuous, fun fantasy romp about a boy and his first car and it was good. It was Bay directing a Spielberg movie. Rhyno posted:Like I've been saying, nobody gives a single gently caress about what happens on AoS. But you'd think the poster boy for "shared universe" would care. It just shows that these movies and TV shows are better off being unconnected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:It's not that complicated to understand why people think you're lying. It's first, obviously, because the movies CD feels the most compelled to defend - the prequels, Transformers, Man of Steel, etc - are, among the fanbase outside of this forum, generally considered among to be failed, embarrassing, bottom-tier trash for idiots. Of course, this isn't the whole story. There's also standard goon contrarianism; annoying when pro-Trump, baffling when pro-prequel. But really the main issue is how they defend these films that leads many to assume they're simply lying, either to themselves or others. If someone defends an Adam Sandler film by saying "I know Adam Sandler films are dumb but I like fart jokes even if I know they're not exactly high art" that's a comprehensible defense. When someone says "I like Adam Sandler movies because the man is a secret genius exploring the Jungian archetype of The Fool" then it's hard to not assume that the person is pulling your leg, and this is the standard type of the explanations for why these movies are actually good; not "I just like bright colors and explosions" but bloviating about vague and not-particularly-insightful notions of "artistry," overwrought and poorly-substantiated fan-theories and headcanons about secret depth and moral complexity, and, last, appeals to the sheer length of arguments rather than their points or value. I've read people refer positively to the 128-page rebuttal of The Phantom Menace review and the 30,000-word "Why The Transformers Films Are Good" character-vomit just because they are very long, as though their length meant anything in particular. I could, with no difficulty, dig up ten 300-page books that purport to rebut whatever your political and/or religious beliefs are. So it is not hard to see why people, when looking at both the quality of the subject of the defense and the quality of the defense itself, tend to find it easier to believe that people are deliberately lying or playing some kind of game, rather than these are really their sincere opinions. It is certainly easier and more comforting to believe than the alternative. This is most assuredly not what I am talking about. Not to say that those people don't exist, or that it hasn't happened on SA before, although it is not as laughably one sided as you claim (and I've never heard the "length = merit" argument here). What I am talking about is poo poo like spreadsheet guy's insistence that we know BvS will be bad but will be performing "mental gymnastics to convince [ourselves] that it is great" or similar happening for the Ghostbusters trailer, or anyone who doesn't say the prequels are rancid poo poo being treated like they are either autistic or a giant troll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Martman posted:But, I mean, who could like Man of Steel? That movie that is "generally considered among to be failed, embarrassing, bottom-tier trash for idiots?" I thought Man of Steel was a pretty fun superhero movie but an awful Superman movie. Like, they were arguing for children to die in it unironically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I thought Man of Steel was a pretty fun superhero movie but an awful Superman movie. Like, they were arguing for children to die in it unironically. The birthing matrix Clark destroyed was empty, and even it wasn't that's "killing children" in the same way Planned Parenthood does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Do you people actually watch movies or just shove your head up your rear end and listen to the muffled dialog?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Neither, I prefer my films converted into flavor elements that evoke the visuals and narrative beats via a proprietary process and then sprayed onto my tongue in the correct sequence. Delicious!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The birthing matrix Clark destroyed was empty, and even it wasn't that's "killing children" in the same way Planned Parenthood does. The bus scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The actual argument is that Michael Bay, as a director, possesses a basic proficiency in the language of film. That this is misinterpreted as an argument for him possessing secret genius, rather than mere literacy, ultimately says the most about the person making this misinterpretation. Ah, just "basic proficiency" in the language of film. Interesting. Well, my 5 year old nephew professes a basic proficiency in the language of English, but this does not mean he should be writing novels
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Well, maybe not now. But in a few years he could be the next Eragon dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I thought Man of Steel was a pretty fun superhero movie but an awful Superman movie. Like, they were arguing for children to die in it unironically. If you are talking about the talk Jonathan Kent have with Clark after the bus rescue, he clearly did not like what he was saying either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:"Wall of text" = one medium-sized paragraph If that's your definition of medium I suddenly understand why I medium sodas at movie theaters are now the size of what I would expect a large popcorn to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:It was Bay directing a Spielberg movie. I think a key thing is no one involved with the movies gives a poo poo about AoS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
I enjoy MoS more if I just assume Jonathan Kent is supposed to be a shithead. In retrospect a lot of what I disliked about the film was him and once I make that assumption it flows a lot better for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:This is most assuredly not what I am talking about. BvS could be not bad. I haven't seen it yet so I can't make a solid determination. I am guessing with relative certainty that it will be bad, based on the subject matter, tone, director, desperate me-too scrambling of the studio, and everything I've heard about the producers and creative process around Superman movies at DC. I can also guess with relative certainty that even if it is bad it will be defended here unless something in it vaguely offends somebody's politics or includes a woman who is good at several things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The bus scene. That's a father arguing with himself about what he's willing to sacrifice to protect his son. Clark saved the kids in the bus, then he saves the oil rig workers. Like, yes characters we are sympathetic to talk about letting people die so Clark can protect himself, but any time Clark has a choice between saving someone and protecting himself, he saves someone. The only exception to that is at the explicit instruction of his dad, and it's completely understandable that a father would sacrifice himself for his son, and that a son would have a hard time disobeying his father.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I enjoy MoS more if I just assume Jonathan Kent is supposed to be a shithead. In retrospect a lot of what I disliked about the film was him and once I make that assumption it flows a lot better for me. Not a shithead, but definitely the voice of paranoid distrust in humanity in Clark's head that counters Jor El's optimistic hope. Which is kind of a shame; Superman's power should come from Krypton, and his sense of decency and hope should come from his folks, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:BvS could be not bad. I haven't seen it yet so I can't make a solid determination. I am guessing with relative certainty that it will be bad, based on the subject matter, tone, director, desperate me-too scrambling of the studio, and everything I've heard about the producers and creative process around Superman movies at DC. I can also guess with relative certainty that even if it is bad it will be defended here unless something in it vaguely offends somebody's politics or includes a woman who is good at several things. Yes, you are clearly the one without bias. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Yes, you are clearly the one without bias. Cool. I don't recall saying I have no bias. I do have no particular bias in favor of wanting a film I have no personal or financial stake in to be successful. Even if I happened to particularly care about the characters, if it sucks, at this point big-name comic book movies are like the subway; wait ten minutes and a reboot will come along
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Also the context of the scene is that inside the house the mother of Clark's bully is trying to get the Kents to admit their son is touched by the hand of God or some poo poo, which is the exact sort of thing any parent wouldn't want heaved onto their twelve year old kid. Even the composition of the establishing shot puts Clark outside, alone, sitting on a swing. He's ostracized enough as it is. When Jonathan approaches him, he scolds him a bit, telling him that he has to keep this side of him a secret. And then Clark asks an impossible question to answer, and Jonathan, being human, fumbles it the slightest bit. And he decides that this is the moment to come clean to Clark about everything. And so he does. And explains why Clark has to keep his powers secret. Jonathan wants him to figure out why he was sent here before he embraces that he came from out there. He's not teaching him to be paranoid, he's telling him he needs to understand himself before he makes decisions that will sooner or later, weigh on humanity's destiny. He's heaving heavy poo poo on his kid, but telling him that he shouldn't put that weight on his shoulders until he understands why he needs to. That whole scene is so distinctly rewritten and un-Goyer that I figure both Jon Nolan and Kurt Johnstad finagled with it quite a bit before it was shot. There's a lot of room left for the physical acting to do work in that scene (Jonathan can't even look at Clark when he says "maybe"; Costner plays it as a shameful admittance, not a coercive argument).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I don't recall saying I have no bias. I do have no particular bias in favor of wanting a film I have no personal or financial stake in to be successful. Even if I happened to particularly care about the characters, if it sucks, at this point big-name comic book movies are like the subway; wait ten minutes and a reboot will come along You clearly have a bias against the film. Which is fine, but don't be so loving high and mighty about it, pretending you are only making objective observations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:Also the context of the scene is that inside the house the mother of Clark's bully is trying to get the Kents to admit their son is touched by the hand of God or some poo poo, which is the exact sort of thing any parent wouldn't want heaved onto their twelve year old kid. Even the composition of the establishing shot puts Clark outside, alone, sitting on a swing. He's ostracized enough as it is. When Jonathan approaches him, he scolds him a bit, telling him that he has to keep this side of him a secret. And then Clark asks an impossible question to answer, and Jonathan, being human, fumbles it the slightest bit. And he decides that this is the moment to come clean to Clark about everything. And so he does. And explains why Clark has to keep his powers secret. Jonathan wants him to figure out why he was sent here before he embraces that he came from out there. Costner is one of my favorite parts of that movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
That might have been the best scene in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Costner gets the real meat of the picture; Crowe gets to play across Shannon a whole bunch, and has monologues upon monologues, but the subtle and soft and tender moments are secretly all Costner. Jonathan Kent is more in the DNA of the picture than Jor-El, who admires, but is still distant and commanding of Clark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:Not a shithead, but definitely the voice of paranoid distrust in humanity in Clark's head that counters Jor El's optimistic hope. Which is kind of a shame; Superman's power should come from Krypton, and his sense of decency and hope should come from his folks, in my opinion. Clark doesn't really distrust humanity. The reason why he doesn't reveal himself earlier than he did is because he doesn't know who he is. And if he doesn't know that, how can anyone else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Yeah Sad Scene #451 was my favorite part of the movie too. When I go to the Superman movie what I want is to be alternatively depressed, bored and disturbed. My only quibble was that visionary director Zach Snyder didn't include his signature epic slow mo rape scene
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They just released a supercut that shows the "Road to Civil War" and gives a quick recap of Cap and Tony's evolution. Includes the Netflix shows and Agents of Shield's civil war tie-ins if you don't watch those shows. Nothing about this video convinces me that there was intentional buildup to Civil War other than We Need To Make Civil War Now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yeah Sad Scene #451 was my favorite part of the movie too. When I go to the Superman movie what I want is to be alternatively depressed, bored and disturbed. My only quibble was that visionary director Zach Snyder didn't include his signature epic slow mo rape scene 😴
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yeah Sad Scene #451 was my favorite part of the movie too. When I go to the Superman movie what I want is to be alternatively depressed, bored and disturbed. My only quibble was that visionary director Zach Snyder didn't include his signature epic slow mo rape scene this is a transparently terrible post lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Nothing about this video convinces me that there was intentional buildup to Civil War other than We Need To Make Civil War Now. There actually pretty clearly wasn't, otherwise Civil War would be the capstone film of Phase 2 instead of Age of Ultron. It would actually fit pretty well too since Tony had experience with those fire breathing dudes and all that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yeah Sad Scene #451 was my favorite part of the movie too. When I go to the Superman movie what I want is to be alternatively depressed, bored and disturbed. My only quibble was that visionary director Zach Snyder didn't include his signature epic slow mo rape scene lol now do one about how some movies are steak and some movies are mcdonalds
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
What I'm hoping for the sequel is more yelling of every line and for Doomsday to be imagined as a weird ethnic drag queen whose multicultural Oriental army is defeated by the forces of the eugenicist white ubermensch (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:What I'm hoping for the sequel is more yelling of every line and for Doomsday to be imagined as a weird ethnic drag queen whose multicultural Oriental army is defeated by the forces of the eugenicist white ubermensch It's OK if you got a little chub during 300, no one is going to judge you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
I'm just going to be pissed if Superman has his cape in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Yeah Sad Scene #451 was my favorite part of the movie too. When I go to the Superman movie what I want is to be alternatively depressed, bored and disturbed. My only quibble was that visionary director Zach Snyder didn't include his signature epic slow mo rape scene People have laughed at this post already, but I just really really want to underline the basic fact that what you want out of a movie doesn't matter. Sad movies are sad, happy movies are happy, and you can watch whatever one you prefer, but YOU CANT SAY A SAD MOVIE IS BAD BECAUSE IT ISN'T HAPPY! That's just stupidity on the level of hating a dog for not being a cat! Also MoS isn't even that sad or depressing, jesus. I'm not a fan of the movie, but I can recognize and respect what is is, even if it's not what I want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:BvS could be not bad. I haven't seen it yet so I can't make a solid determination. I am guessing with relative certainty that it will be bad, based on the subject matter, tone, director, desperate me-too scrambling of the studio, and everything I've heard about the producers and creative process around Superman movies at DC. I can also guess with relative certainty that even if it is bad it will be defended here unless something in it vaguely offends somebody's politics or includes a woman who is good at several things. It seems like you're moving the goal posts from "overwrought and poorly-substantiated fan-theories and headcanons about secret depth and moral complexity" alllllll the way to "people defending MoS/BvS when (I think) it is bad".
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:09 |
|
|
"Maybe, I don't know." is not advocacy for killing children. His actions growing up and as a young adult are proven as correct throughout the movie, and his dad comes off as initially callous but as he says himself, they're making this up as they go along. It's not subtle. He also walks the walk and sacrifices his life to rescue a dog and continue to protect his kid so that he could decide on his own what kind of person he wants and needs to be. He uses his last moments on earth to heroically sacrifice himself for his kid's sake which also inspires his kid actually leave and try to find himself. It's the best depiction of Clark's dad in any on screen version of Superman (except for the one episode of the animated series where the villain of the week knocks Superman down and Pa Kent just rolls up to him like YOU CAN'T HIT MY SON LIKE THAT to steamroll him even though it would obviously result in him being killed).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 04:41
|
|
