|
Grendels Dad posted:Screw RoboCop, he's too edgy/grimdark/tryhard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioop9HEam7I&t=116s He is pretty edgy I agree
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:15 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:09 |
|
Not to derail current discussion because this is great and I enjoy reading it, but:BravestOfTheLamps posted:This is a dumb non-sequitor. 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.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:16 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:17 |
|
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. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Moviefights and shots of the day are cool. We don't need moviefight, though. You can go into the Beavis thread yourself and find that it's chock-a-block with close-readings and votive screen captures of awesome cinematography, etc. Like, Suicide Squad doesn't have a chance in space or Hell of being as well shot as Beavis, but once the dust of haterade has settled, it'll be nice to see some dissertation on what the film actually is, not what it's 'supposed to be,' so sayeth the Lord.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:18 |
|
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 so basically you're legion
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:18 |
|
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". 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.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:18 |
|
Moriatti posted:Not to derail current discussion because this is great and I enjoy reading it, but: The most American thing in the movie is actually Captain America defying the UN. 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". Some trips to Youtube tell me that the final version is slightly better.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:21 |
|
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. Two superheroes:
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:21 |
|
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. 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. Electromax posted:Two superheroes: I know the first is from QOS (I think) but what's the second from?
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:22 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:People generally don't believe that what they like is "bad". 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? 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. you know its almost like this has been specifically addressed and aluded to multiple times in my posts
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:22 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I know the first is from QOS (I think) but what's the second from? Looks like John Wick
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:23 |
|
LGD 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 HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I know the first is from QOS (I think) but what's the second from? Shanghai skyscraper fight in Skyfall and nightclub rampage in John Wick
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:23 |
|
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? 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?"
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:26 |
|
criticizing people for not using subjective enough language rather than making an effort to understand and respond to what they mean is a jive rear end move
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:29 |
|
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. Skyfall/John Wick Regrettably both superheroes murder their adversary at the end of the fight
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:29 |
|
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? People buy things = good? Here is how criticism works. Somebody describes some art, sometimes at the end of it they say: Because of these reasons, this film is bad. Then you propose that bad does not exist. Who cares what you or the first guy think is bad? If you engage the argument at all, you can still sound smart! So now you are here attempting to define "bad" and "good", purely in market terms I will add, while simultaneously proclaiming that there is no such thing as "bad movies". What is your end-goal? Why or why not did you enjoy Civil War? Surely it is not because you checked the box office rankings after the movie?
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:30 |
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Looks like John Wick I should have recognized that lanky fucker.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:30 |
|
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 : 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), and technical specifications are only a small and frequently unimportant portion of the overall experience of using a Smartphone (which is much more OS/app driven). On the flipside, if there are deficiencies in either taste or the power of hardware you better believe that's going to affect things. I guess I'm down to spitball about the determinants, but I feel like this is something a lot of better informed and funded people have tried, and it's resulted in many box office failures and formulaic cinema. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Let's once again translate the bullshit: LGD fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Aug 3, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:34 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I should have recognized that lanky fucker. 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.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:35 |
|
I get that the CU is organized like a TV show, but I can't understand if that really makes a difference in whether people go to see new movies. Like, the content of each movie is defined by that policy, but are people really going to remember a semi-abandoned plotline about Teenager-Omnipotent Robot romance, and specifically watching Avengers 5 for the resolution to that? Does anybody here care?
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:35 |
|
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.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:36 |
|
LGD posted:you know its almost like this has been specifically addressed and aluded to multiple times in my posts 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.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:38 |
|
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. Pay attention to Wayne's gallery. It's a seemingly random assembly of armors. There might as well have been a giant penny in the back. Or some notes attached to the European and Japanese armor reading 'nope' and 'kinda like this' respectively.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:44 |
|
Electromax posted:Not even the first time they've met in such a fashion: Whoa. It's really the same guy? That's cool... of Keanu? Or is he everywhere?
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:45 |
|
I found the thing where Joker is looking at Vicki Vale's portfolio and popping a boner at gritty photos of a napalm attack or whatever very intriguingly 90's when I was a kid.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:46 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:46 |
|
Vintersorg posted:Whoa. Here's his IMDB. A mixed bag I guess. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0076780/
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:47 |
|
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! What you asked was whether or not it's fair to call movies bad if people don't like it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Aug 18, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:48 |
|
Really the difference between movies slammed as total failures and movies heralded as universal successes is around 20% audience approval. From ~65% -> ~85%. One in five people is the difference between a complete irredeemable piece of garbage and a universally-beloved wonderful movie. It truly is a time of extremes.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:48 |
|
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. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/captain-america-civil-war-nabs-fifth-best-opening-ever/
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:49 |
|
Electromax posted:Not even the first time they've met in such a fashion: future war
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:50 |
|
Ah, a tool.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:50 |
|
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), don't read malcolm gladwell books
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:50 |
|
Vintersorg posted:Whoa. John Wick was the movie that made me look him up too. He seems to be Bargain Bin JCVD but whenever he gets to punch Keanu, magic happens
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:51 |
|
The movies I like are good. The movies I don't like are bad.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:53 |
|
The co-directors of John Wick were stuntmen on the Matrix movies, which is how they ended up doing the movie in the first place - Keanu approached them about doing stunt work or choreography for it, with the underlying thing being "you should just direct this". They fell in love with the concept and rewrote the script from there and pitched a take and got the job. Thus, like half the people John kills in the movie are people who Neo killed in The Matrix movies. Because it's just a big happy family of stuntmen.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:54 |
|
Electromax posted:Not even the first time they've met in such a fashion: That guy's great in John Wick. That movie is full of interesting, one or two scene goons.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:55 |
|
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. Note that I haven't slagged the competition or made up bizarre theories. Anyways, this is exactly what I'm getting at. Box office seems to matter right until it doesn't, and there's no cohesive thesis for when it does and doesn't matter. "People do not generally flock to entertainments that they believe are "bad" (as in things that they find unenjoyable)," and yet they flocked to the DC movies, as evidenced by them making more money than most MCU movies. So of course there's this other consideration to explain why in this case they did flock to something they believe is bad. So it ends up being about the money, until they make a lot of money. Then it's about the critics, but somehow that represents popular opinion, not just critical opinion. I've read all your posts and all I see are special cases, not a single thread that holds together across the argument. I'd love to know what you think that single, cohesive thread is. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Aug 3, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:57 |
|
Hat Thoughts posted:don't read malcolm gladwell books Alternatively, read Malcolm Gladwell books so you can know when people are quoting Malcolm Gladwell books Like I'm pretty sure that's where Trump got this idea all of a sudden that we ought to replace our entire military communications infrastructure with couriers
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 21:59 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:09 |
|
For real though this thread is Kevin McCarthy running into traffic, screaming at everyone who'll listen that the Marvel movies are secretly bad and they're all wrong for liking them.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:00 |