|
Toxxupation posted:People have been bitching about badly edited films since Alien 3, it's not a new thing at all. Yeah, that's a fair point and those are good examples. I suppose and I didn't think about that. It just seems to be a factor in every single lovely film I've seen reviewed in the past year or two. Even still, and conceding the point to a degree, the examples I've been given (Blade Runner, Alien 3) seem to span loving decades. Lately "bad editing" seems really concentrated and comes up a lot as the reason for a movie sucking out loud.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Eh, a big mantra from DC diehards who were upset about BvS was "hopefully it's another Kingdom of Heaven" re: the Ultimate Edition. The sentiment against bad editing has always been fairly current, I would just say that this summer had a lot of poorly edited blockbusters where that criticism became nearly memetic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
X-O posted:Kang is Fox's because of his ties to Fantastic Four. That's still the weirdest thing to me. I get that the character of Kang technically debuted as Pharaoh Rama-Tut in FF #19, but he didn't appear as Kang until Avengers #8 about a year later, I'm pretty sure they weren't revealed as even being the same person until the mid- to late-1970s at least, and Kang was in the Avengers far more than he was ever in FF in the interim. Because compare Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - they debuted in the fourth ever issue of X-Men but most of their appearances after that were in Avengers, which is enough to put them in that odd limbo where they're both Avengers and X-Men characters and both studios can use them (or something like that). I don't understand why the same apparently can't apply to Kang.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
I thought the edits in BvS were jarring at times. I didn't think Suicide Squad had bad editing really outside of a few wonky flashbacks, but it had terrible pacing and felt like it was missing an entire act and some people confuse that for editing at times.Wheat Loaf posted:That's still the weirdest thing to me. I get that the character of Kang technically debuted as Pharaoh Rama-Tut in FF #19, but he didn't appear as Kang until Avengers #8 about a year later, I'm pretty sure they weren't revealed as even being the same person until the mid- to late-1970s at least, and Kang was in the Avengers far more than he was ever in FF in the interim. Kang was also a regular FF villain and had ties to Reed and Doom. So it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They technically could make another Hulk solo movie, but Universal has full distribution rights and Disney does not want to spend tons of money making a movie to have someone else control what theaters it ends up in, when the release date is, and taking a chunk of the profits. How long does that Hulk/Universal contract hold? That can't be in perpetuity, right? There has to be some kind of exit clause, I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
The one time I noticed a weird editing decision was when Deadshot decided to go into the building Waller was in by himself. Flag is yelling for him to stand down and then the camera cuts to Will Smith walking toward it. Instantly Flag is next to him and quips "Mind if we tag along?" That made no sense to me. Why wouldn't he just threaten a head explosion? Why wouldn't they at least give that decision a second to breathe before they invalidate it? It's like Joker picking up Harley, the plane crashing, and Harley rejoining the Squad within like 5 minutes except it's more to do with bad editing instead of bad pacing. Spoiler tags are still in full effect, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
X-O posted:Kang was also a regular FF villain and had ties to Reed and Doom. So it makes sense. Sure, he had the ties with Reed and Doom, but how regular an FF villain was he as Kang? Going by ComicBookDB, he was in Annual #3 (where, if I recall correctly, the sum total of his appearance was him picking up Doom in his time machine when Doom was somehow trapped, musing that they're probably related, then sending him on his merry way) then he's not in it again until the Walter Simonson stories with Galactus and the Black Celestial in the late 1980s. I don't think he's even in FF as Rama-Tut very much, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Lately "bad editing" seems really concentrated and comes up a lot as the reason for a movie sucking out loud. It probably has some to do with an unparalleled state of everyone on the planet being able to learn about and understand the science behind movies. Thanks, internet!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Tbh it might be better served as a Netflix show but a serious moon knight could be good
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Realtalk I sincerely, sincerely doubt we're gonna see any focus from either of the big two in the near future on their knockoff legal version of the other side's dude, so no Moon Knight/Hyperion/Sentry/Steel/any one of the countless Spider-Man variants DC has tried and mostly failed to make popular in the last half-century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Oh tbh I didn't even think about the mk/ batman thing I was just thinking about current books I like
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Can anyone name a film prior to 2014 where editing was ever even mentioned, brought up or noticed at all? For good or for ill? Aside from porno movies I mean. Like, in ANY way? I can't. The gently caress is going on in the god damned editing room these days? You'd think it'd get easier with not having to physically cut out strips of film and poo poo like that but it seems like suddenly every loving film on the planet was edited poorly. Quantum of Solace. And does criticizing shaky-cam count, or just blanket "editing" comments?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Yeah, that's a fair point and those are good examples. I suppose and I didn't think about that. It just seems to be a factor in every single lovely film I've seen reviewed in the past year or two. Even still, and conceding the point to a degree, the examples I've been given (Blade Runner, Alien 3) seem to span loving decades. Because I think before you can chalk it up to bad editing being a stylistic choice or maybe just too fast, or too slow or something. Rarely (I think anyway) does it omit large chunks of scenes in order to cut down the running time. We've seen this happening for a few years now with big tentpole films and it's starting to become a weird trend. BvS felt aimless and incoherent, Suicide Squad reeked of studio tonal replacement, Ghostbusters felt sloppy, and Fantastic Four seemed to pay homage to the scene in Planet Terror where a reel goes missing and we jump right into an action scene. Like there's subjective dislike of editing styles, such as the quicker cuts vs. longer cuts...but when you can tell the pieces don't match, then it's like putting on They Live glasses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Can anyone name a film prior to 2014 where editing was ever even mentioned, brought up or noticed at all? For good or for ill? Aside from porno movies I mean. Like, in ANY way? I can't. The gently caress is going on in the god damned editing room these days? You'd think it'd get easier with not having to physically cut out strips of film and poo poo like that but it seems like suddenly every loving film on the planet was edited poorly. Catwoman. It's rare for that movie to keep a single shot for more than three seconds before jumping to another shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNlmRId2FVQ also this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCKhktcbfQM
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
For me bad editing means "why is "B" happening when the last scene was dealing with "j"? Anytime it feels like there is a scene missing to tie in what happened before and after I saw bad editing. For instance in Suicide Squad when Enchantress has her turn there was nothing indicating before that scene if it was a Suicide Squad mission or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Bruceski posted:Quantum of Solace. And does criticizing shaky-cam count, or just blanket "editing" comments? I watched Quantum of Solace in a Chinese movie theatre with a Chinese dub, and I'm not sure it would have made much more sense even if it had been in English.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
X-O posted:Kang is Fox's because of his ties to Fantastic Four. BiggerBoat posted:Jesus Christ. I think I brought it before in this thread or one like it but, honest to god, I have never ever in my life, prior to this year, seen "editing" used in film criticism. Like at all. I watch a ton of movies and read a lot reviews and message boards but for some reason 2016 is like the year of lovely editing. Aphrodite posted:It probably has something to do with the biggest movies now being big nerd attractors? I think it has more to do with the fact that there are a lot of big tentpoles based on licensed properties with an existing fanbase, which attracts geeks, which means obsession with whether or not they're "getting it right" and more scrutiny about studio meddling. I doubt comics fans as a group know much more about filmmaking than the average consumer, and people making off-hand comments about editing or cinematography to make a pretense of filmmaking savvy is nothing new.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:That's still the weirdest thing to me. I get that the character of Kang technically debuted as Pharaoh Rama-Tut in FF #19, but he didn't appear as Kang until Avengers #8 about a year later, I'm pretty sure they weren't revealed as even being the same person until the mid- to late-1970s at least, and Kang was in the Avengers far more than he was ever in FF in the interim. Not to dump on you, but is this even a situation where someone can put on their Comic Book Fan hat and make their case? Some of these contracts have had specific character mentions so it could be as straightforward as the contract saying "FF, Doom, Galactus, etc. etc. oh, and Kang" and there wouldn't be anything Marvel could do at this point except a straight-up buyout of that character. Not sure if Kang warrants a specific mention like that though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
The highly valued Kang rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Marvel sold the film rights to their franchises ages and ages ago when the idea of doing it themselves was a hilarious fantasy. I doubt they planned on ever needing to have the rights to a lot of characters they could have just thrown in, like yeah, sure Fox, you can have Kang why not he's kind of an FF guy. What surprises me is that the Inhumans aren't with Fox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Wait, poo poo, does that mean they have Adam Warlock, too? Yeah luckily that is a thing that will never come up or will ever be worth movie dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Adam Warlock's space egg was already in Guardians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:Yeah luckily that is a thing that will never come up or will ever be worth movie dollars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
I was one of the prescient few who thought a space movie by James Gunn and Marvel would make money and be fun.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:What surprises me is that the Inhumans aren't with Fox. Because they debuted in Fantastic Four? So did Black Panther. It's definitely not 100% about who appeared where first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Plastik posted:Because they debuted in Fantastic Four? So did Black Panther. It's definitely not 100% about who appeared where first. But Black Panther went on to be an Avenger and have his own adventures as an independent character. The Inhumans never really did much unrelated to Fantastic Four until Infinity. At the very least, it's as odd as them having Kang.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Ronan the Accuser and the Kree first appeared in the Fantastic Four and fought them a lot. Result, a Marvel/GoTG property. Super Skrull and the Skrulls first appeared in the Fantastic Four and fought them a lot. Result, a Fox/Fantastic Four property. End conclusion: Who knows how these things work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:The view must be nice from so far above it all Above the petty critiquing, It's sweet up here. You guys know you take it way too far sometimes right? I'm allowed to point it out, one sperg to another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
X-O posted:I thought the edits in BvS were jarring at times. I didn't think Suicide Squad had bad editing really outside of a few wonky flashbacks, but it had terrible pacing and felt like it was missing an entire act and some people confuse that for editing at times. Lurdiak posted:I was one of the prescient few who thought a space movie by James Gunn and Marvel would make money and be fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I thought it would be really fun and bomb really hard. I was glad I was half wrong. Was GOTG the one that started the "This is the one that'll sink Marvel Studios!" meme or was it around before that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:Yeah luckily that is a thing that will never come up or will ever be worth movie dollars. I can easily see Warlock performing some expository and/or walking MacGuffin role in the Infinity Gauntlet movie or a future Guardians movie. Vision has appeared in several times as many issues as Warlock, but I still see an analogy there--especially since in Age of Ultron he fulfills a role in the plot while having a big sign on the back of his cape reading "We'll characterize this guy in the next movie, we promise."
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
People were saying that Avengers was going to bomb because Edward Norton pulled out and it was "too much" for the average movie-goer to get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Dario the Wop posted:You realize almost everyone said that about Guardians, right? It made less than noted spectacular failure BvS. Basically a flop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Suicide Squad had a lot of scenes that were just poorly constructed. Like the part where Harley gets into an elevator, is shown to be riding in it while everyone else is still in the lobby but when she gets to her floor everyone is already there waiting for her. Or like how there are two separate scenes explaining how Enchantress betrayed them. The only thing the second scene adds is to show that there's a bomb in the subway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Who does MODOK belong to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
MODOK would be firmly Marvel. He started as a Cap villain and never went over to Fantastic Four or X-Men or anything. Plus we've already seen they have AIM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
The only downside to casting Jeff Goldblum in Thor 3 is that he can't play MODOK now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Old Man Pants posted:Who does MODOK belong to? He's AIM so Captain America/Marvel Studios
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 13:00 |
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:He's AIM so Captain America/Marvel Studios While your conclusion is probably right, it isn't really as straight-forward as this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:43
|
|