|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Waller looks miserable at the end, but this is just her opening to create SHIELD. With Batman-Stark's complicity. Yeah, that works.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
I hope Waller is done some justice and we see how big her "balls" are when she stands up and is tough against whatever threat the JLA face. If she's a villain, give her backbone and ability to be legit in what she does equal to a protagonist be it in motivation, conviction, ability, etc. She can be a good character.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Have some BvS BTS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjVTCYob59U  
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Have some BvS BTS. Oh, man, Cavill's accent. What a heart-throb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
I'm starting to see that Gal was picked for the same reason Cavill was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm starting to see that Gal was picked for the same reason Cavill was. Which is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Which is? They emote with their faces incredibly well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:Cavill only really feels like Clark/Superman with the tub scene (Ultimate Cut) or at the end with the "you are my world". The rest of the time he's a robot that's missing its emotion chip. Robotman v Batman  Robotman v Lois  Robotman v Lex  Robotman v Perry 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:They emote with their faces incredibly well. Yep. Very expressive faces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Gatts posted:The other thing about Reeves is his easy confidence. He comes off as more assured, defined in character and personality and mature and I think it helps with the sense of feeling safe with him so it feels more like what you'd expect of Superman. Cavill's Superman is still finding his way in this modern world and maybe one doesn't have as much faith or trust in his abilities not as a hero but as a person you can rest on. He doesn't exude a sense of control I think Reeves Superman does. Inevitable Superman clip incoming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIaF0QKtY0c Reeves was a great actor. EDIT: Lol, too late.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
One page ago man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:I'm a huge supernerd about Superman: The Movie, and while it has problems, the aforementioned scene where he screams and launches into the sky is god drat amazing. This is because of Zach Snyder's directing decisions. He doesn't let his actors emote and has them overact their feelings with lots of yelling. This is true across all of his comic book movies. For 300 and Wonder Woman it works because of the stoic warrior culture but for other movies it actively hinders the product. When you watch Amy Adams or Henry Cavill in other productions they have more opportunity to branch out and it's great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
HIJK posted:He doesn't let his actors emote and has them overact their feelings with lots of yelling. This doesn't make any sense. You're saying he doesn't let them act out their emotions theatrically but then asks them to overact with yelling. Please clarify.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
So on one hand it's Cavill is always sad and on the other it's Cavill is emotionless, so which is it? The answer is neither.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
seravid posted:Robotman v Batman You just proved his point. Cavill is mechanical and the depth of his performance can be captured in screenshots. Try doing that with a great actor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You just proved his point. Cavill is mechanical and the depth of his performance can be captured in screenshots. Try doing that with a great actor. You could literally do that with any great actor, you dope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Oh man, imagine if you could capture the essence of Brando...in pictures!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Great actors have to do more than just emote well, which is why it's so silly that if you want to dismiss Cavill as an actor you'd go after the one thing he demonstrably does really well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Its absolutely untrue to call Cavill a bad actor because of BvS when all the performances were stilted. That's a sign of bad and inflexible direction. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Its absolutely untrue to call Cavill a bad actor because of BvS when all the performances were stilted. Stilted how? The acting isn't naturalistic, but naturalism isn't always the goal -- especially not in a superhero film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Compared to some of the lummoxes we've had to tolerate as leading men in recent years, Cavill is Daniel Day-Lewis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You could literally do that with any great actor, you dope. You can't, you moron. Not Brando, not a young De Niro, not Clift, not Day-Lewis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Oh man, imagine if you could capture the essence of Brando...in pictures! You can't capture the depth of Terry Malloy in still frames. The "essence of Brando" is a completely different thing and utterly meaningless. Why reply only to reveal your poor reading comprehension?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You can't, you moron. Not Brando, not a young De Niro, not Clift, not Day-Lewis. Judakel posted:Don't troll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Just to remind everyone, Judy is the poor mans troll who may not realize he is a troll. Do not pay him much attention for he likes to say blatantly wrong and stupid things
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Just to remind everyone, Judy is the poor mans troll who may not realize he is a troll. Can you remember things you've written two pages ago yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
The amount of iconic still photos that have been taken of Pacino or DeNiro or Day-Lewis are endless, I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Can you remember things you've written two pages ago yet? The fact that you still cling to that is adorable And also utterly irrelevant to the fact that what you're saying is utterly stupid. Any good actor you can capture their acting ability through pictures. All movies are are pictures that move. You take a still shot you take a piece of the performance. I know these are basic, grade school level thoughts, but I am confident you can grasp them with time and effort
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:This doesn't make any sense. You're saying he doesn't let them act out their emotions theatrically but then asks them to overact with yelling. Please clarify. "Overact" was the wrong word, I meant more that he has them project via shouting. You especially see this in 300. The problem with this method is that what should be emotional scenes are reduced to static, so we have different dynamics (like Batfleck's anger and Clark asking him to help Martha Kent) just being shouty smears. It's hard to emote subtle changes when you either have to be stoic or you have to go SPARTAAA/MARTHAAA. That's two extremes and not much room for acting in between.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The amount of iconic still photos that have been taken of Pacino or DeNiro or Day-Lewis are endless, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Clearly you do not know what I am talking about, since I am referring to performances. Look at the post above yours. It is a still frame of De Niro in Taxi Driver. An iconic image, but does it tell you much about the character? Of course not! In the picture you see what looks like an arrogant Bickle, but that is only a small part of the multi-dimensional performance that De Niro gave us. Travis is also shy, unassuming, vulnerable, etc. Cavill's Superman, and most Supermen, are silly characters with little to no depth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Stilted how? The acting isn't naturalistic, but naturalism isn't always the goal -- especially not in a superhero film. It is when you try to tackle attachment to or perception of one's humanity. If superman really turned out to be as unfeeling or unemotive as his portrayal batman would be vindicated in his hunt. The revelation that he found out supes has some semblance of humanity rather than the alien, impersonal force of nature he was assumed to be is what stopped batman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Burkion posted:The fact that you still cling to that is adorable I never argued that you are not taking part of a "masterpiece" when you take a still frame from a film. I was pretty clear on what I said: A still imagine cannot capture the full depth of a performance, and if it does, it is a one-dimensional, lovely performance. I am the stupid one, though. Why do you make me repeat myself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Clearly you do not know what I am talking about, since I am referring to performances. Look at the post above yours. It is a still frame of De Niro in Taxi Driver. An iconic image, but does it tell you much about the character? Of course not! In the picture you see what looks like an arrogant Bickle, but that is only a small part of the multi-dimensional performance that De Niro gave us. Travis is also shy, unassuming, vulnerable, etc. Cavill is playing a character with less depth than DeNiro's Travis Bickle, wow, how insightful. You're saying that the character itself is silly and has no depth, and then using that as some sort of proof that Cavill can't act?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Cavill is playing a character with less depth than DeNiro's Travis Bickle, wow, how insightful. No, reread my posts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Judakel posted:I never argued that you are not taking part of a "masterpiece" when you take a still frame from a film. I was pretty clear on what I said: A still imagine cannot capture the full depth of a performance, and if it does, it is a one-dimensional, lovely performance. I am the stupid one, though. Why do you make me repeat myself? You're shifting goals and you keep repeating yourself to make it seem that the goals are the same. People stated that Henry could not emote or act, so several shots, notably several, were given to show the range he has. An image that sums up a performance isn't a good sign But that's never what was happening. But then you don't care about that, just whatever inane defense you can muster up to keep up the illusion that you have some vain flailing point of any kind of validity. So you keep falling onto different definitions and you keep digging into a new hill you plant yourself on once the old one collapses. That's about your lot in life it seems. Keep dancing on the quicksand and maybe you'll find some solid ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I think there are times when you can capture a great performance in a single still photograph, but I think a lot of credit for that would also to go a writer and director for creating such an all-encompassing moment. The first example that comes to mind is towards the end of Aguirre: The Wrath of God, when Kinski picks up the monkey and looks out into the jungle with disgust.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Burkion posted:You're shifting goals and you keep repeating yourself to make it seem that the goals are the same. I am not shifting goals. I claimed that if one or a handful of still images can capture the depth of a performance, then you have are dealing with a bad actor. Someone thought a handful of still images captured the range of emotions in Cavill's Superman. If you didn't have such a vendetta, you might've realized it is a pretty simple point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think there are times when you can capture a great performance in a single still photograph, but I think a lot of credit for that would also to go a writer and director for creating such an all-encompassing moment. Would you feel the same way if you had not seen the film and superimposed the fullness of the performance per the film onto that still image?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Judakel posted:I am not shifting goals. I claimed that if one or a handful of still images can capture the depth of a performance, then you have are dealing with a bad actor. Someone thought a handful of still images captured the range of emotions in Cavill's Superman. If you didn't have such a vendetta, you might've realized it is a pretty simple point. Goalpost shift emphasized.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 20:00
|
|