|
The Cameo posted: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". Keanu also gave the stunt team on the Matrix Harley motorcycles & gave up his profit-sharing points to make sure the SFX & Costuming crew could keep working on the franchise so it makes sense the same general crew would be down to work with him repeatedly.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:01 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:48 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:What you asked was whether or not it's fair to call movies bad if people don't like it. quote:How so? The mostly mediocre-to-bad Marvel movies are used as a standard for successful superhero films. This is the "Marvel Way" negatively influencing audience expectations.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:03 |
|
LGD posted:I'd say people not liking a film is the sine non qua of a film being bad. It isn't. Audiences can dislike a movie for thousand different reasons. This is not what makes the bad. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Aug 18, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:06 |
|
Jenny Angel posted:Alternatively, read Malcolm Gladwell books so you can know when people are quoting Malcolm Gladwell books Is that specifically from that Millennium Wargame challenge where the Navy guy sank the US' fleet with a bunch of yachts and fishing boats?
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:06 |
|
Grendels Dad posted: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 The people behind Wick were stunt guys that worked with Keanu on the Matrix movies apparently. Keanu wanted to help them out. EDIT: Jesus, I'm really slow at the posting thing today.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:07 |
|
Jenny Angel posted:Alternatively, read Malcolm Gladwell books so you can know when people are quoting Malcolm Gladwell books Oh for sure that's helpful I just feel that reading Gladwell at an impressionable age was, overall, a detriment to my life.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:07 |
|
DrVenkman posted: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. I just think they're bland.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:07 |
|
Equeen posted:I just think they're bland. I wouldn't even go that far. A lot use a distinct formula is all. They mostly just get a ton of credit and are treated to a different standard than most other films (people who rag on CGI in other films will not complain about the same thing in Marvel films for instance). They're not bad by any means but they are overrated at this moment in time. They will probably ultimately remembered as being "pretty good overall with a few standouts".
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:15 |
|
Shageletic posted:The people behind Wick were stunt guys that worked with Keanu on the Matrix movies apparently. Keanu wanted to help them out. No biggie, I think it can't be said often enough how great Keanu Reeves and everybody he likes is. Also, I'm currently watching TDR and the sound Batman's fists make when he hits Joker during the "interrogation" is sick. That Batman is all kinds of crazy, and the only reason he comes off as even mildly heroic is that his opponent is even crazier and also poor.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:15 |
|
Grendels Dad posted:and also poor. Thats just what he wants you to think
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:19 |
|
Jenny Angel posted:Alternatively, read Malcolm Gladwell books so you can know when people are quoting Malcolm Gladwell books Well the "entire experience" includes packaging, which there is actually research indicating is the dominant factor in selection. However, even if 95%+ of Blink was obvious trash, is there anything that suggests that particular example was incorrect? I'd genuinely be interested if that was the case. Also, if we're going to get this pendantic about it- that campaign was actually a massive advertising success for Pespsi that "moved the needle" substantially- it turns out that people do respond quite a bit to a perceived quality advantage! e: BravestOfTheLamps posted:It isn't. Audiences can dislike a movie for thousand different reasons. This is not what makes the bad. e2: Sir Kodiak posted:Note that I haven't slagged the competition or made up bizarre theories. LGD fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Aug 3, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:22 |
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Thats just what he wants you to think Joker secretly Donald Trump? He's only burning his half!
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:23 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Is that specifically from that Millennium Wargame challenge where the Navy guy sank the US' fleet with a bunch of yachts and fishing boats? Yup. The guy in charge of the insurgent side decided he was gonna bypass all the US side's surveillance efforts by having all his communications take place via handwritten notes and motorcycle couriers rather than anything electronic. Which is fair enough, but he also decided that all of his motorcycle couriers arrived at their destinations instantly and had 0% chance of being intercepted It owns because a massive, technology-centric US military wargame in 2002 that's designed to show how we win the War of the Future should have been the easiest boondoggle in the world to dunk on, but the dude couldn't help himself
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:28 |
|
LGD posted:Yes, I get that you're extremely enraged by other people having different tastes. My searing hatred aside, there's nothing wrong with what I said. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Aug 3, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:40 |
|
It's fascinating, because the idea is simply a metaphor. The idea is not to be overreliant on tech, to leverage redundancy, etc. Of course Trump takes it completely at face value as though it's literally a suggestion, just like you'd expect a business guy reading The Art Of War to.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 22:41 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:My searing hatred aside, there's nothing wrong with what I said. Well someone disliking a film is absolutely a sine non qua of a film being bad. How can it be bad if no one dislikes it for any reason? Judgments of an artwork's "badness" is fundamentally rooted is a person's subjective dislike. Audiences can of course dislike good works for all kinds of stupid reasons. It's just that if you're explicitly trying to make a work that appeals to that audience it's extremely hard to say you've done a good job if they are cold to it! You can make art for its own sake, but that's not what anyone is doing here. You want to talk about meaningless statements? How about "loving mediocre movies influences expectations?" So you think the public's taste is trash? Fine, its a pretty common opinion and one I often hold myself. But that statement is simply saying that by being exposed to things that they like and that you disapprove of, they'll be less inclined to favorably receive the works you do like because they know there is an alternative out there that more closely matches their own preferences. That's an admission that your preferences don't have a hope of competing if people are given a choice in the matter, and you'd prefer they weren't. That isn't a position that's firmly convinced of the superiority of its position and confident in its ability to persuade people, its paternalistic elitism. Which, given that we're talking about loving big budget superhero movies aimed at the broadest possible audience, is absolutely laughable.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:05 |
|
LGD posted:But I am responding to people who have, which seems like important context when trying to follow an argument I'm making? And there isn't a single thread because I'm not predicating my arguments on a single overarching means of determining the truth, which does lead to things being a bunch of special cases. But I don't see where you're seeing any real inconsistency- i.e. my model for how people respond to marketing and the actual experience of a film is identical in every case. They choose to go to movies that look like they're going to be good/entertaining, and the experience of the film can meet, surpass, or fall short of their expectations. You only get "inconsistency" if you think I somehow expect audiences to keep their opinions static, which I do not (or I treat things like initial take and tail differently between franchises, which I am not). I care about money because it's a pretty useful way to measure both initial and sustained interest in a film. Likewise critic reviews and measures of audience sentiment like Cinema Score are pretty useful for discovering how people felt. Sometimes critical thought is in alignment with audiences, sometimes it is not. I'm not really sure what sort of "single cohesive" thread you think I should be using to inform my worldview about how people received various films- accounting for multiple data points seems pretty important. The inconsistency is in how you determine how an audience reacted. Specifically, box office is a useful metric right up until it disagrees with the point you're trying to make. At which point you go searching for reasons why it doesn't count.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:15 |
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The inconsistency is in how you determine how an audience reacted. Specifically, box office is a useful metric right up until it disagrees with the point you're trying to make. At which point you go searching for reasons why it doesn't count. That is something that would happen if you were taking multiple data points into account to get a picture of the overall situation rather than doing a literal more money = better than dick waving contest. So yes, if you simply cite total box office numbers (as you did) I am going to cite other reasons why that is not actually the full picture. There's no actual inconsistency here, and I'm treating the box office take as a useful metric in all cases.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:32 |
|
LGD posted:Well someone disliking a film is absolutely a sine non qua of a film being bad. How can it be bad if no one dislikes it for any reason? Judgments of an artwork's "badness" is fundamentally rooted is a person's subjective dislike. This logic is retarded and backwards. Movies aren't bad because someone doesn't like them, or good because someone likes them. They have an existence outside of the subjective experience of an individual, rooted in collective experience and in artistic context. You are so deathly afraid of talking about comic book movies that you've begun denying the existence of "good" or "bad". LGD posted:Audiences can of course dislike good works for all kinds of stupid reasons. It's just that if you're explicitly trying to make a work that appeals to that audience it's extremely hard to say you've done a good job if they are cold to it! You can make art for its own sake, but that's not what anyone is doing here. You want to talk about meaningless statements? How about "loving mediocre movies influences expectations?" So you think the public's taste is trash? Fine, its a pretty common opinion and one I often hold myself. But that statement is simply saying that by being exposed to things that they like and that you disapprove of, they'll be less inclined to favorably receive the works you do like because they know there is an alternative out there that more closely matches their own preferences. That's an admission that your preferences don't have a hope of competing if people are given a choice in the matter, and you'd prefer they weren't. That isn't a position that's firmly convinced of the superiority of its position and confident in its ability to persuade people, its paternalistic elitism. Which, given that we're talking about loving big budget superhero movies aimed at the broadest possible audience, is absolutely laughable. Let's translate the bullshit: 1. "Works that don't appeal to audiences if they were supposed to appeal to audiences are failures." 2. "The public sometimes or often has bad taste in media consumption." 3. "If audiences watch and like movies BotL doesn't like, they'll prefer to watch movies that BotL doesn't like." 4. "BotL is anti-democratic because they know that if people have free choise in watching movies, they'll prefer movies that BotL doesn't like." (!!!) The first one is just confused and irrelevant, the second is somewhat true. The third has some obscure reasoning and it seems like a truism. Yeah, audiences prefer movies. And then it devolves into complete where you imagine me to be some authoritarian who wishes to take away choice in watching movies. And barely any of this relates to comic book movies. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Sep 23, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:34 |
|
LGD posted:That is something that would happen if you were taking multiple data points into account to get a picture of the overall situation rather than doing a literal more money = better than dick waving contest. So yes, if you simply cite total box office numbers (as you did) I am going to cite other reasons why that is not actually the full picture. There's no actual inconsistency here, and I'm treating the box office take as a useful metric in all cases. I exclusively mentioned box office numbers because the post of yours I responded to exclusively addressed consumption. Anyways, can you clarify how you integrate these multiple data points? Because I'm curious what you're using that ends up with "People genuinely think the Bayformers movies are good" that doesn't have the same result for the DC movies. Because Christ knows those get slaughtered by the critics. edit: "doesn't" instead of "does" Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 3, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:40 |
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Can someone remind me what the good superhero movies are then? Because I'm pretty sure this thread hates each individual one. The Dark Knight and Civil War are both good movies.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:48 |
|
I don't even really see the point of comparing "Marvel" and "DC", like they're these singular, homogeneous wholes. I can't say I think one is definitively better than the other because a) the DC stable of films only has two examples on which to base a decision (soon to be three) and b) I think some Marvel movies are better than the one DC film I've seen, while others are not as good. Wouldn't it make more sense to just discuss the individual movies and their merits than to try and decide which company is "better"?
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:50 |
|
Phylodox posted:I don't even really see the point of comparing "Marvel" and "DC", like they're these singular, homogeneous wholes. I can't say I think one is definitively better than the other because a) the DC stable of films only has two examples on which to base a decision (soon to be three) and b) I think some Marvel movies are better than the one DC film I've seen, while others are not as good. Wouldn't it make more sense to just discuss the individual movies and their merits than to try and decide which company is "better"? Eh, you can always slice things up for more granularity or group things together to talk about broader trends. It's not pointless to talk about Jurassic Park being better than The Lost World even if The Lost World has a scene (e.g., the roundup) that I like better than some scenes in Jurassic Park.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:54 |
|
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. This sounds like a delightfully post-hoc way to cover-up for your blunder.
|
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:54 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This logic is retarded and backwards. Movies aren't bad because someone doesn't like them, or good because someone likes them. They have an existence outside of the subjective experience of an individual, rooted in collective experience and in artistic context. And that collective experience and artistic context you're citing ultimately boils down the the subjective tastes of individuals. quote:Let's translate the bullshit: e: Sir Kodiak posted:I exclusively mentioned box office numbers because the post of yours I responded to exclusively addressed consumption. LGD fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Aug 4, 2016 |
# ? Aug 3, 2016 23:54 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This logic is retarded and backwards. Movies aren't bad because someone doesn't like them, or good because someone likes them. They have an existence outside of the subjective experience of an individual, rooted in collective experience and in artistic context. Careful. If you keep going like this you'll end up becoming DC's biggest fan.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:00 |
|
LGD posted:the films themselves disappoint general audiences as well as critics. LGD posted:Some people very obviously think the DC movies are good too Glad we've cleared this up. Thanks!
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:10 |
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Glad we've cleared this up. Thanks! you realize that's not an actual contradiction though like you keep trying to counter these extreme all or nothing statements I'm not making
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:11 |
|
LGD posted:you realize that's not an actual contradiction though Ya cuz you refuse to commit to any sort of solid statement so you can keep rephrasing the same general wrong stuff endlessly & tire my thumb from continuously scrolling past ur posts on the Awful App for Android devices.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:18 |
|
LGD posted:you realize that's not an actual contradiction though Things can be contradictory without being extreme. Unless "some people" is a lame dodge where you're like "at least two or people exist."
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:18 |
|
LGD posted:No, I merely deny that you have some sort of privileged position in terms of determining what that is, and that the criteria are different for art as art and commercial art intended primarily as an entertainment. Actually pleasing an audience is important for one but not the other. There isn't an actual difference between art as art and commercial art. You're also missing is that subjective experience and statement can be completely true. This is a trend I see in nerd circles way too often, where people are so intent on disproving others wrong that they end up trying to deny the existence of truth. LGD posted:Would you then care to explain why people watching mediocre movies has such a ruinous effect on the public's perception of good movies? Uncritically consuming movies leads to difficulties with recognizing or enjoying good moves. Judging bad movies as good inevitably leads to skewed perception, such as MCU movies being held up as an ideal for superhero movies. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Aug 6, 2016 |
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:25 |
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Eh, you can always slice things up for more granularity or group things together to talk about broader trends. It's not pointless to talk about Jurassic Park being better than The Lost World even if The Lost World has a scene (e.g., the roundup) that I like better than some scenes in Jurassic Park. Except, in this case, it would be like declaring The Lost World the better movie based solely on that scene. It's hard to compare two wholes when one is considerably smaller than the other. I could easily name one Marvel movie I liked better than Man of Steel, but I don't take that to mean that all Marvel movies are better than DC movies.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:31 |
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Things can be contradictory without being extreme. Unless "some people" is a lame dodge where you're like "at least two or people exist." if (hypothetically) out of every 10 people who saw a film an average of 2 hated it, 4 thought it was on the bad side of mediocre, 3 thought it was on the good side of mediocre, and 1 person loved it, I would be entirely entitled (and accurate) in describing it as a film that disappointed audiences and was generally poorly received I would also be correct to say that there were a sizable number of people who liked the film people have mixed opinions on things, and when I say something was "bad" I don't mean "0% approval ultra-Hitler" this isn't about avoiding firm opinions, its about being generally in accord with reality and avoiding asinine statements e: BravestOfTheLamps posted:I am objectively correct with my opinions, but that's besides the point. There isn't an actual difference between art as art and commercial art. quote:Uncritically consuming movies leads to difficulties with recognizing or enjoying good moves. Judging bad movies as good inevitably leads to skewed perception, such as MCU movies being held up as an ideal for superhero movies. quote:This is again bullshit we need to clear. LGD fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Aug 4, 2016 |
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:33 |
|
HIJK posted:Careful. If you keep going like this you'll end up becoming DC's biggest fan. Naw, that belongs to teagone BravestOfTheLamps posted:I am objectively correct with my opinions, but that's besides the point. There isn't an actual difference between art as art and commercial art. God, you sound like an insufferable douchebag who thinks his opinions actually matter and should be held above others. Guess what, opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. People are allowed to like what they like and form their own opinions, as they're unique to the individual. Judging something that's "good" or "bad" is entirely subjective - neither is inherently wrong.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:34 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I am objectively correct with my opinions, but that's besides the point. There isn't an actual difference between art as art and commercial art. I'd say this is an SMG parachute/parody account but not even SMG would get probated from meltdowns in a loving steven universe thread
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:40 |
|
I wanted to find some shots for the thread but I'm not very good at finding movie screenshots on Google and I don't own most of these movies. I DID find this piece of Avengers concept art and the shot it seems to have inspired in the movie again: There should be a concept art thread, but I don't think I know enough about the process of it to make one myself. Also, I haven't seen Thor since it came out. How does the cinematography in that hold up? It looked like it had some good stuff in it based on my GIS:
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:40 |
|
lazorexplosion posted:I understand that the traits 'obtuse inability to understand moments of likable characterization' and 'likes BvS' often go hand in hand. Maybe? I like the main characters in the Marvel films as performed and portrayed more than the film they're contained in. I enjoy Batman V Superman more as a spectacle, and I appreciate cinematography as much as I appreciate writing.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:41 |
|
MinibarMatchman posted:I'd say this is an SMG parachute/parody account but not even SMG would get probated from meltdowns in a loving steven universe thread Maybe that's why he created a parachute account.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:41 |
|
Phylodox posted:Except, in this case, it would be like declaring The Lost World the better movie based solely on that scene. It's hard to compare two wholes when one is considerably smaller than the other. I could easily name one Marvel movie I liked better than Man of Steel, but I don't take that to mean that all Marvel movies are better than DC movies. It's not that huge a difference, there's at least five WB/DC movies, not even counting Suicide Squad. LGD posted:if (hypothetically) out of every 10 people who saw a film an average of 2 hated it, 4 thought it was on the bad side of mediocre, 3 thought it was on the good side of mediocre, and 1 person loved it, I would be entirely entitled (and accurate) in describing it as a film that disappointed audiences and was generally poorly received I don't get the point of your posts if the results are this vague. "Some number of people like DC movies. Some number of people like Marvel movies. These Marvel movies have good box office. This one DC movie has good box office, bad aggregated critical response." Pages of this poo poo. Holy poo poo the difference in how light and shadow are used.
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:44 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 05:48 |
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:I wanted to find some shots for the thread but I'm not very good at finding movie screenshots on Google and I don't own most of these movies. I DID find this piece of Avengers concept art and the shot it seems to have inspired in the movie again:
|
# ? Aug 4, 2016 00:44 |