|
Skwirl posted:They could've done that, but it doesn't sound better than what we got, and Marvel is making a shitload of money off their movies, so I don't know why they'd want to. They would have made a lot of money either way. I was just thinking about the story issues the Phase 1 movies had.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
The MSJ posted:They would have made a lot of money either way. I was just thinking about the story issues the Phase 1 movies had. I don't know. It seemed pretty organic. Especially compared to the clustercunt that is the DCU so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Well it was all still a new thing. Any one of those non Iron Man films could've failed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
I think Avengers does a decent job of establishing its characters and their relationships. Tony and Bruce hit it off as friends and their relationship is cute and funny; there did not need to be an entire film dedicated to build that up because all you really need is a scene or two. But if you're getting into a time machine to try and make a perfect Marvel Cinematic Universe, I suppose you could make a few adjustments based on the four missteps of Phase One: 1.) Iron Man 2 sucked due to studio meddling. 2.) The Incredible Hulk sucked and Ed Norton bailed. 3.) Captain America had a rushed third act. 4.) Hiring Joss Whedon to direct the Avengers. If you don't meddle with Iron Man 2 then you can have Favreau direct The Avengers instead of Whedon and get a better Iron Man 2. If you drop the Incredible Hulk film, which doesn't matter because everyone knows the scoop on the Hulk, you could have two Captain America movies heading into The Avengers instead of just one that was forced to rush to set up the icicle ending. Of course Marvel is very successful so they can survive some missteps, which makes everyone's proclamations that
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Hulk is one of Marvel's best known characters, so it only makes sense that they would try to make him a star in a single character movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Why would not hiring Whedon for The Avengers have been good?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Why would not hiring Whedon for The Avengers have been good? Yeah, there's better directors out there but Jon Favreau isn't one of them. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 10:49
|
|
|
Meanwhile, over at BSS:lomzus posted:Vision ha ha Tony just can't handle Vision's swag.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Now with Banner gone, Vision is Stark's new therapist? Wanda looks miffed that her date got interrupted again. You got money Tony, hire Doc Samson or whoever.Proposition Joe posted:But if you're getting into a time machine to try and make a perfect Marvel Cinematic Universe, I suppose you could make a few adjustments based on the four missteps of Phase One: There's also The Avengers handwaving away the ending of Thor. I'd expect with Loki as the main villain, finding a way to get Thor to Earth without a Bifrost would play a bigger part in the story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
The idea of a She-Hulk court room drama or comedy gets brought up pretty frequently, and it is a good idea. But what I want to see even more is an In Treatment-like show or movie about Doc Sampson having to deal with superhero therapy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Yeah, there's better directors out there but Jon Favreau isn't one of them. Christ. Favreau is a way better director than Whedon. My proof: one of them made Iron Man, the other one made Avengers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Yeah, there's better directors out there but Jon Favreau isn't one of them. Christ. Jungle Book is supposed to be really good
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The third Bourne movie did it well. The second one was really loving bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyZU7lfGjyk This is all those same ideas executed poorly. Disagree. That scene too owns. The MSJ posted:Boyd Holbrook is playing "the chief of security for a global corporation pursuing Jackman’s Wolverine " in next year's Wolverine movie. This might possibly be taken from Jason Aaron's run on Wolverine, where a private military contractor pursues Wolverine to imbue their soldiers with his abilities. It involved lazer claws and a lot of explosions. It was great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Favreau is a way better director than Whedon. My proof: one of them made Iron Man, the other one made Avengers. Sow now we all hate Avengers 1 AND 2? Which ones do we like again? None of them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Avengers 1 was not pleasant to watch at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
I don't really like or care about the MCU but Avengers 1 is fine. You'd have to go out of your way to suggest it's anything below decent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I don't really like or care about the MCU but Avengers 1 is fine. You'd have to go out of your way to suggest it's anything below decent. But, but, but...it's shot like a TV show!!! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Disagree. That scene too owns. I wouldn't be surprised if they also use this as the way to introduce X-23 AKA the All-New Wolverine. This is Hugh Jackman's last film as Wolverine, I believe, and that would the most obvious way to address movies without him. Ironically the first arc of her new book has a shady corporation clone her - which I suppose would become her origin if Fox decided to use her in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Greataval posted:Avengers 1 was not pleasant to watch at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I don't really like or care about the MCU but Avengers 1 is fine. You'd have to go out of your way to suggest it's anything below decent. I enjoyed Avengers and AoU when I saw them in theaters, but Iron Man is on a wholly different level. Iron Man, Cap 1 and Guardians are the three movies from Marvel Studios that I like and can rewatch the most. Also Avengers does look like warmed over butt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Avengers 1 is no masterpiece theatre but it is fun as poo poo. Watched it for a second time recently and it still holds up
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Yvonmukluk posted:I wouldn't be surprised if they also use this as the way to introduce X-23 AKA the All-New Wolverine. This is Hugh Jackman's last film as Wolverine, I believe, and that would the most obvious way to address movies without him. Ironically the first arc of her new book has a shady corporation clone her - which I suppose would become her origin if Fox decided to use her in this movie. Didn't Wolverine already kill X-23 in one of the movies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Didn't Wolverine already kill X-23 in one of the movies? That was Lady Deathstrike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You cannot be serious. It's boring, is shot poorly in basically every conceivable way and I'm not concerned enough about the well being of cars to care about anything that happens. It's better than AoU but it is still bad. There are tons of good action movies I can watch the Avengers over something like Dredd or Fury Road?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Iron Man and GotG are in a tier of their own as far as Marvel movies go, I would recommend both to basically anyone
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Favreau is a way better director than Whedon. My proof: one of them made Iron Man, the other one made Avengers. One of them also made IRON MAN 2, which is one of the more unpleasant movies I've seen so I'm still going to give it to Whedon on that front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You cannot be serious. Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is just trolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
The Avengers is really good and fun, unlike Age of Utron, which was mediocre and eh, and Batman v Superman, which was ok and urgh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
The Avengers is way better than AoU because it plays to Whedon's strengths for the bulk of the movie; it's largely these guys meeting for the first time and quipping with each other and these big personalities clashing. And that's fine. A lot of the action is poorly done or nonsensical. The first car chase has nobody we actually care about in it; the Loki/Cap fight is pretty embarrassing to watch with cap spinning around in his tights but it gets good when Tony shows up; the Thor/IM fight is so pointless and ends abruptly and super weirdly; the stuff on the carrier is actually fairly solid with everyone having interesting and varied stuff to do; the last fight in New York has good and bad parts but is largely a fight with the ugliest CGI gray blobby aliens possible. It's an okay movie that was way overhyped for what it actually was because it was the first time you had a major crossover like that, so there was an insane amount of goodwill. The recent cineD backlash is overblown but a response to that I think. It's rewatchable largely on the strength of the acting and the fun team up tone but there's also not a ton of stuff to knock you out of your seat. Like there's no JP t-rex chasing car sequence or anything approaching Fury Road or T2's action sequences, which is weird for one of the bigger blockbusters in recent years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
For me the Avengers is kinda meh It's hard to watch the visuals are pretty bland. The dialog gets old real fast. The action is a mess. Its another marvel movie that gets a pass for being "fun". I enjoyed IM1 for being a good entry and was solid overrall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:I don't know. It seemed pretty organic. Especially compared to the clustercunt that is the DCU so far. Clustercunt. By all metrics things are moving along swimmingly. Justice League filming, Wonder Woman filming. No plans to cancel the other movies. In fact two more added. But no, let's be Devin Faraci and make up bullshit that everything has gone to hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:By all metrics things are moving along swimmingly. Justice League filming, Wonder Woman filming. No plans to cancel the other movies. In fact two more added.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Yeah, anyone who disagrees with you is just trolling. Like I'm not saying that disliking 'The Avengers' is impossible or that people aren't allowed to dislike it (heaven knows I've got some questionable cinematic likes/dislikes), but it makes me raise my eyebrows a little bit. At the very least I'd be interesting in talking about why someone feels that way, rather than dropping a one-sentence post and peaceing-out. Case in point.... Tezcatlipoca posted:It's boring, is shot poorly in basically every conceivable way and I'm not concerned enough about the well being of cars to care about anything that happens. It's better than AoU but it is still bad. There are tons of good action movies I can watch the Avengers over something like Dredd or Fury Road? The Avengers is easily my #3 Marvel movie to date, behind Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier. Although I go back and forth on whether Ant-Man and/or Iron Man 3 bump The Avengers out of the #3 spot. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:What does the continuing production or success of the movies have to do with how good they are? It means despite all the backlash and overblown bullshit that everything is going full steam ahead. There is no clustercunt as you so beautifully put it. People actually do want to see the universe Zack Snyder is directing. If we followed that logic the door would have shut when Iron Man 2 came out. There's room for both and it infuriates me that people want to homogenize the poo poo out of everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Like I'm not saying that disliking 'The Avengers' is impossible or that people aren't allowed to dislike it (heaven knows I've got some questionable cinematic likes/dislikes), but it makes me raise my eyebrows a little bit. Dude, yes you are. You're "raising your eyebrows" and making sure to point out how in the minority they are. You're telling people "they cannot be serious" in finding the Avengers unenjoyable. If you want to be that guy then fine but don't dance around the truth like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Dude, yes you are. You're "raising your eyebrows" and making sure to point out how in the minority they are. You're telling people "they cannot be serious" in finding the Avengers unenjoyable. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:We're talking about a movie that made over a billion dollars worldwide, enjoyed by 92% of critics (82% of top critics) and 91% of audiences, has a 4.6 out of 5 with over 10,000 reviews on Amazon, and an 8.1 out of 10 with nearly 100,000 ratings on IMDb, so when someone says the movie is "bad", the thought does cross my mind, yes. At the very least I imagine people who think 'The Avengers' is bad recognize and acknowledge that they're in the extreme minority, right? There are many tv shows that have much better cinematography than Avengers. It isn't that there are better action movies than the Avengers it is that the Avengers is a poor action movie. The action sequences are flat and there are no stakes nor consequences (unless you're a car).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:
I think Winter Soldier is the best of the Marvel stuff - I REALLY enjoyed it, followed by Iron Man 1. I really felt like the Raccoon was the only good part of Guardians of the Galaxy - everything else was forgetful especially the other characters, and Ant-Man was actually pretty good, too. Thor had a ratio of 3:1 of boring to fun. Avengers 1 is the only movie in a long while to put me to sleep - both times I watched it. The characters felt like simplified, uninteresting versions of their individual movie counterparts and the action scenes relied more on going "Oh! I recognize these characters!" more than being actually good and well done. Avengers 2 was everything lazy and bad about Avengers 1 taken up another $X million dollars in budget. Drifter fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:There are many tv shows that have much better cinematography than Avengers. For some perspective, I'm not saying 'The Avengers' is as good as The Winter Soldier or GotG. Those two are head-and-shoulders above the bulk of the MCU in my view. Edit-- quote:The characters felt like simplified, uninteresting versions of their individual movie counterparts and the action scenes relied more on going "Oh! I recognize these characters!" more than being actually good and well done. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
Vintersorg posted:It means despite all the backlash and overblown bullshit that everything is going full steam ahead. There is no clustercunt as you so beautifully put it. People actually do want to see the universe Zack Snyder is directing. Of course there's room for both. That doesn't mean that what we've seen so far hasn't been terrible. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I'm not saying that the series will be forever bad or that it should stop being made. Just that the current entries are awful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:33
|
|