Grendels Dad posted:

Screw RoboCop, he's too edgy/grimdark/tryhard.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

This is a dumb non-sequitor.

Being about America is one of the basic functions of Captain America's character. It's like how Batman is a vigilante, or Superman is an alien saviour.

LGD posted:

Because, again, you are defining "bad" in reference to your personal opinions. People do not generally flock to entertainments that they believe are "bad" (as in things that they find unenjoyable). There are obviously all sorts of price constraints and social pressures at play, but a lot of people eat at McDonalds because they genuinely like it compared to the alternatives. People genuinely think the Bayformers movies are good. I disagree, but there are definitely positive qualities in both cases that drive real enjoyment.

ThePlague-Daemon posted:

I always thought this was a problem on this forum even among posters who do try to analyze the movies. There isn't that much focus on the construction of the movies and most of the analysis I see focuses only on ideology based on a big picture assessment of the movie, or only a few smaller details.

What I'm saying is we need to bring back Bad Avengers Shot of the Day and have more moviefights.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

Moviefights and shots of the day are cool.

Equeen posted:

Slim Jim Pickens posted:

Just to clarify, I am my favourite superhero. I am funny but tormented like Ironman, a good upstanding guy like Captain America, uhhhhh

I can be immature like scarletwitch, I am awkward like the vision, ummm

I can like Captain America like the wing guy, I can like Iron Man like the other Iron man, I have family like Hawkeye, I can kick it with the boys like Black Widow, I am funny like Ant Man, I was a teenager once like Spider man,

Bucky is cute, like me.

Jenny Angel posted:

A lot of what fucks that tarmac sequence up is how, in an attempt to get those full-team splash panel shots in there, they've made everyone move at similar paces and in similar ways. As such, it lacks that vital energy and childlike wonder that composes the good half of the "smashing your action figures together" idea, because nobody's really moving in a way that tells you anything about what kind of physical and emotional perspective they bring to the fight beyond "I can/can't fly".

Instead, we're left with the bad half of smashing action figures - commoditized, interchangeable action. Ain't no kid ever told his friends "okay we've got five power rangers and five monsters, and let's bring them together real carefully... nice and easy..."

Moriatti posted:

Not to derail current discussion because this is great and I enjoy reading it, but:


If you don't think a movie about the fallout of an American based special operatives unit of questionable ethical origins (2 human genetic experiments, 1 burned spy and an experimental test pilot with a stolen prototype.) operating in a third world country to take out a threat they created themselves to fight what they considered at the time to be a bigger threat is about America....

I don't know what to tell you man.

Jenny Angel posted:

A lot of what fucks that tarmac sequence up is how, in an attempt to get those full-team splash panel shots in there, they've made everyone move at similar paces and in similar ways. As such, it lacks that vital energy and childlike wonder that composes the good half of the "smashing your action figures together" idea, because nobody's really moving in a way that tells you anything about what kind of physical and emotional perspective they bring to the fight beyond "I can/can't fly".

Instead, we're left with the bad half of smashing action figures - commoditized, interchangeable action. Ain't no kid ever told his friends "okay we've got five power rangers and five monsters, and let's bring them together real carefully... nice and easy..."

ThePlague-Daemon posted:

I always thought this was a problem on this forum even among posters who do try to analyze the movies. There isn't that much focus on the construction of the movies and most of the analysis I see focuses only on ideology based on a big picture assessment of the movie, or only a few smaller details.

What I'm saying is we need to bring back Bad Avengers Shot of the Day and have more moviefights.

Detective Dog Dick posted:

There isn't much characterization outside of dialogue, half of which is sarcastic. Meanwhile the shot of Bruce Wayne waking up next to some faceless floozy and checking out the view of the misty lake from his glass house says plenty about him without him ever opening his mouth.

Electromax posted:

Two superheroes:

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

People generally don't believe that what they like is "bad".

Sir Kodiak posted:

Huge numbers of people saw Batman v Superman and Man of Steel. Batman v Superman is currently the sixth highest-grossing movie of the year in the US. So apparently people believe those movies are pretty good, by this metric.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I know the first is from QOS (I think) but what's the second from?

LGD posted:

People do not generally flock to entertainments that they believe are "bad" (as in things that they find unenjoyable). There are obviously all sorts of price constraints and social pressures at play, but a lot of people eat at McDonalds because they genuinely like it compared to the alternatives.

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I know the first is from QOS (I think) but what's the second from?

LGD posted:

Yes. The thing is that we're discussing people trying to sell something extremely similar to those same people that you think have garbage opinions, on exactly the same terms. Those people are demonstrably willing to try it, but they demonstrably like it less after they do. Is it unfair to describe the less popular thing as an inferior, or "bad" product relative to the first one?

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I said it there but I'll say it again - the best characterization there is Ant Man. Instead of the cute dialogue explaining his various relationships like that nauseating Hawkeye/Black Widow stuff, he's characterized by being shown that he is not 100% on what his powers actually do. It culiminates in giving that extended sequence some tension by accidentally almost killing people a couple of times.


I know the first is from QOS (I think) but what's the second from?

LGD posted:

Yes. The thing is that we're discussing people trying to sell something extremely similar to those same people that you think have garbage opinions, on exactly the same terms. Those people are demonstrably willing to try it, but they demonstrably like it less after they do. Is it unfair to describe the less popular thing as an inferior, or "bad" product relative to the first one?

Mechafunkzilla posted:

Looks like John Wick

Jenny Angel posted:

Except as you pretty much admitted in your last response to me, this is a super outdated mindset. Ask Pepsi how much their blind taste test has moved the needle for them. Ask any smartphone manufacturer how much they've benefits from campaigns that tout their better-than-iPhone tech specs. Product quality is only one driver of many in consumer choice, especially for a purchase with as low barrier of entry as a movie ticket, and you've said, paraphrased a bit, that you have no idea about :

A) Which attributes comprise that driver
B) The importance of that driver compared to others

Which, y'know, I agree! Neither of us have access to the kind of market research data that would let us draw rigorous conclusions about this issue. Which is why I feel like it's more useful and insightful to spitball with qualitative hypotheticals like some folks have been doing, e.g. with the point about clarity of characterization, rather than holding up a black box and insisting it contains all the answers while also admitting it contains no answers

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Let's once again translate the bullshit:

"If people like these movies less than others, is it fair to call them bad?"

This is irrelevant. A relevant question would be something like "are these movies good or bad?"

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

I should have recognized that lanky fucker.

bring back old gbs posted:

Lmao holy poo poo that is right and I did enjoy that. The grimdark rain and everything was probably a positive in that regard.

LGD posted:

you know its almost like this has been specifically addressed and aluded to multiple times in my posts

Halloween Jack posted:

I rewatched Burton's Batman a few weeks ago. Didn't think much about it at the time, but the first thing I think about outside the non-costume scenes are stuff happening in art galleries. It makes the Joker that much more compelling when you see Bruce Wayne appearing wooden, commenting on all this priceless art he owns but doesn't seem to care about, embarrassing a snide journalist. Then there's a scene where Joker invades an art gallery, "improves" the art by vandalizing it, and says that his violence is art. Strange juxtaposition. Just thinking out loud.

Electromax posted:

Not even the first time they've met in such a fashion:



He's the guy who looks like if Jon Hamm had come up through the Serbian mafia.

Sir Kodiak posted:

It's been addressed via other statements that are essentially contradictions, not clarifications. That is to say, that huge box office numbers for Batman v Superman don't count because it's front-loaded. It comes across less as you actually having an argument, but simply picking rules and exceptions until things are divided up the way you'd like. That's why I brought it up again, as your most-recent statement that "People do not generally flock to entertainments that they believe are 'bad'" isn't clearly consistent with what you've previously said, making it an opportunity to expand and clarify. It's not an attack, I'm just trying to understand here.

Vintersorg posted:

Whoa.

It's really the same guy? That's cool... of Keanu? Or is he everywhere?

LGD posted:

Or you could try answering a question rather than just "translating" things to whatever you want or eliding large portions of my posts. And again, if you do not think what I am discussing is relevant (as you frequently proclaim) you are free to stop talking about it!

mr. stefan posted:

The vast majority of people who clamor to watch marvel movies are literal children. Most adults don't give a poo poo about them and only buy the ticket to see it with their kids. Kids enjoy them because they have no frame of reference as to what a well shot, well characterized movie looks or sounds like.

quote:

Audiences were 59 percent male and mostly adults.

Electromax posted:

Not even the first time they've met in such a fashion:



He's the guy who looks like if Jon Hamm had come up through the Serbian mafia.

LGD posted:

I would say those are not good examples because they would only be one determinant of overall quality from the standpoint of a consumer- i.e. initial taste is not the same as the experience of drinking an entire bottle of soda (which is where Pepsi fell down),

Vintersorg posted:

Whoa.

It's really the same guy? That's cool... of Keanu? Or is he everywhere?

Electromax posted:

Not even the first time they've met in such a fashion:



He's the guy who looks like if Jon Hamm had come up through the Serbian mafia.

LGD posted:

Because they were genuinely convinced/hoped it was going to be a good movie based on marketing and a pre-existing attachment to the characters/comics/comic universe? Plenty of them also thought it was good. Just fewer than thought that in the case of the Marvel films, something that can be seen in critical reviews/box office results/etc. This isn't a "more money = better than" thing, it's a "we have pretty solid evidence that these movies have genuinely disappointed a lot of their intended audience" thing, and slagging the competition or making up bizarre theories about how the "Marvel formula" has poisoned audience expectations in such a way that people cannot see the virtues of the superior product placed before them is just daft.

Hat Thoughts posted:

don't read malcolm gladwell books