|
Drifter posted:Did you see later when he writes that he hopes people understand hyperbole? Well, in the same video he calls Terminator perfect which I can agree with so it was hard to judge. computer parts posted:They kill people so I'd think you would. They are part of a government-sanctioned organization that contains actual oversight and is forced to take responsibility for its actions. In fact, that's kinda what the movies are about. Why would I take issue with that?
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Man, I sure am glad I don't see what's so bad about Avengers and Avengers 2. Must be maddening! lol yeah "what's it like to hate a movie guys??" asks noted laid back poster SolidSnakesBandana
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
It's really old-hat to point out that a lot of traditionally 'bad' action carries its own appeal. You can safely assume that the dude posting Worst Fight Scene EVER on youtube is doing it because it's interesting in some way: funny, fascinating, whatever. What HBomber and I find interesting about Avengers is, on the other hand, the utter lack of anything interesting going on. It doesn't even function as camp - even though Whedon's style in Avengers 1 is very derivative of the camped-up Star Wars prequels. The camp is botched. (In Avengers 2, Whedon switched tactics towards - weirdly - emulating Zack Snyder/Man Of Steel.) When Widow breaks out of the chair, it's basically just like 'insert action sequence here', because Whedon has already exhausted the point with expository dialogue. She's suddenly nonchalant about being brutally tortured, the straw-men are like "BUHHHH?", and you might as well end the scene there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:
A Nazi government-sanctioned organization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:They are part of a government-sanctioned organization that contains actual oversight and is forced to take responsibility for its actions. In fact, that's kinda what the movies are about. Why would I take issue with that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Man, I sure am glad I don't see what's so bad about Avengers and Avengers 2. Must be maddening! As someone who is legit a huge fan of The Avengers, and not some ironic hacky bullshit joke crap, it's not a very good scene. And even despite that shot being one second, it stands out. Your brain notices it even if you didn't. Honestly some of Whedon's shots remind me of the kind of stuff I used to shoot when I was a kid learning how to use a camera. Sam Raimi awoke the filmmaker in me. Watching him crank the camera every which way, and tilt it on it's side was mindblowing as hell back then. I knew movies weren't real, and I knew camera's shot them, but it was the first time I actually realized that people can actually DO things WITH the camera! You can flip that poo poo any way you want. Which I did. In high school, I went nuts with it. Like every shot would be dutched. Even someone just getting a cup of coffee was overly dramatic, with tons of weird angles. I had to learn to use that stuff for certain moments, rather than because I felt like doing it. Instead of being just a "cool shot" it becomes a part of the storytelling process. The shot of Widow sideways may insinuate that her mission just went sideways, but the problem is it's not stylistically consistent and that's no good. It doesn't feel a part of the film, but rather some weird outliner thing that looks like a shot Whedon thought looked cool and threw it in during the edit while no one was looking. However, if the shot was, Black Widow runs towards the guy, jumps and THEN the camera spins to it's side, all in one take, it would feel less jarring. Because we see the camera move into that position. The shot, and style, have changed naturally instead of during a cut. If that makes sense. Still fuckin love The Avengers though. I don't care how dumb the one take scene near the end looks. It's rad as hell and all I wanted out of that movie. CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Marvel has no direct role (they did some small consulting on Deadpool and gave notes to Sony about ASM2 that were ignored) at all in any non-MCU movie except for the new Spider-Man. Word is that Marvel is in the driver's seat for homecoming, but no clear direction on how much control Sony will let them have on Spider-Man going forward. Sony has said that Marvel knows how to make money, so they're going to let them control Spider-Man because they know it will make them money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:Sony has said that Marvel knows how to make money, so they're going to let them control Spider-Man because they know it will make them money. It's been fascinating watching Sony flailing about trying to figure this superhero poo poo out. They got halfway through making Fantastic Four and had a freakout when they realised the artsy director they'd hired was making an artsy bodyhorror film instead of mediocre lowest-common-denominator fodder so they booted him and tried to course correct and jam in a mediocre lowest-common-denominator ending and hosed it up. They begrudgingly allowed Ryan Reynolds to make that R-rated superhero film about a pretty unknown character he'd been bugging them about for a decade and then tried to take credit when it surprised everyone by making made a poo poo ton of money. Their non-Deadpool X-Men films are roughly making the same amount of money as they have done for 16 years except now they cost a LOT more to make so they're losing more and more money each time. They hosed up their second attempt at a Spider-Man franchise and had to cancel all the spinoff movies they'd stupidly announced too early so they're handing it back to Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
I think the only problem I personally had with the second Amazing Spider-Man was they decided killing Gwen Stacy again was necessary. Sure there are other problems with the movie but that decision in particularly seems so unnecessary, especially because from memory she was a really good actor in both movies. Although that's like one of the 2 scenes I actually remember, the other being the bit where Spider-Man first meets Electro, and there's the really memorable music going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It's been fascinating watching Sony flailing about trying to figure this superhero poo poo out. They got halfway through making Fantastic Four and had a freakout when they realised the artsy director they'd hired was making an artsy bodyhorror film instead of mediocre lowest-common-denominator fodder so they booted him and tried to course correct and jam in a mediocre lowest-common-denominator ending and hosed it up. They begrudgingly allowed Ryan Reynolds to make that R-rated superhero film about a pretty unknown character he'd been bugging them about for a decade and then tried to take credit when it surprised everyone by making made a poo poo ton of money. Their non-Deadpool X-Men films are roughly making the same amount of money as they have done for 16 years except now they cost a LOT more to make so they're losing more and more money each time. They hosed up their second attempt at a Spider-Man franchise and had to cancel all the spinoff movies they'd stupidly announced too early so they're handing it back to Marvel. Yer talkin 'bout Fox man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Yer talkin 'bout Fox man. Argh I keep mixing them up
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:Sony has said that Marvel knows how to make money, so they're going to let them control Spider-Man because they know it will make them money. That's what they said about Homecoming, but I don't think they have clarified what Marvel's role is after that. There was an article in The Hollywood Reporter that said a Sony Exec wanted Marvel to "get the Spider-Man universe off the ground" and then Sony was going to take over. No idea if that is the actual plan or if just a quote about what Sony "wants" to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's what they said about Homecoming, but I don't think they have clarified what Marvel's role is after that. There was an article in The Hollywood Reporter that said a Sony Exec wanted Marvel to "get the Spider-Man universe off the ground" and then Sony was going to take over. No idea if that is the actual plan or if just a quote about what Sony "wants" to do. LOL if they actually fell for Marvel's "just the tip" plan
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:Although that's like one of the 2 scenes I actually remember, the other being the bit where Spider-Man first meets Electro, and there's the really memorable music going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Saw Civil War. I liked Paul Rudd and the new spider-kid. Movie fight:    
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
That TV looks nice in Civil War, but Bruce has a much better suit. Have to call this one a draw.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's what they said about Homecoming, but I don't think they have clarified what Marvel's role is after that. There was an article in The Hollywood Reporter that said a Sony Exec wanted Marvel to "get the Spider-Man universe off the ground" and then Sony was going to take over. No idea if that is the actual plan or if just a quote about what Sony "wants" to do. I think that's more in regards to the spin-offs they want to do like Venom and Silver Sable. Spidey is already confirmed to be in the next two Avengers films, and Marvel wouldn't be giving over RDJ if they were only going to have him for one movie. quote:Since you teamed with Marvel, do you plan to make a whole Spider-Man universe? Do you have plans for more work with Marvel? quote:"Here's the thing I can tell you: We're really, really fortunate on this because Marvel and Kevin Feige have really embraced the character, and nobody knows it as well as Marvel," Rothman told IGN. " It is another crown jewel of Sony's for sure."
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Might have to give it to BvS simply because they had CNN and Civil War's news apperently comes from a unnamed company who exists to show the news and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Might have to give it to BvS simply because they had CNN Corporate synergy at its finest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Might have to give it to BvS simply because they had CNN and Civil War's news apperently comes from a unnamed company who exists to show the news and nothing else. I would have to give it to BvS because that is a look of sheer horror and dread on Ben's face Chris kind of looks annoyed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Chris kind of looks annoyed. I can't take my eyes off his hairpiece.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
I do like how the BvS shot devotes a huge amount of screen space to the monitors, which works well with the idea of this overwhelming news freaking Batman out. While I don't dislike the composition from Civil War it fails to visually emphasize the news event itself as a big deal to the same degree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Might have to give it to BvS simply because they had CNN and Civil War's news apperently comes from a unnamed company who exists to show the news and nothing else. I think I hate TV news product placement even more than normal product placement. Seeing Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer talk about invading space aliens or giant monsters or whatever just yanks me straight the gently caress out the film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Squinty posted:I think I hate TV news product placement even more than normal product placement. Seeing Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer talk about invading space aliens or giant monsters or whatever just yanks me straight the gently caress out the film. I thought that was an awesome addition to the ultimate cut of BvS. I absolutely loved the newscasters talking about poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
All comic book movie TV news should be presented by the trio of newscasters from Spawn where one was straightforward and serious and the others a shallow celebrity news presenter and a conspiracy theorist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Picard Day posted:I do like how the BvS shot devotes a huge amount of screen space to the monitors, which works well with the idea of this overwhelming news freaking Batman out. Right. Cap learns about this crucial event through a tiny screen in a gray room, with his mildly bothered expression shot with Marvel's standard diffused lighting. The movie doesn't care, so why should he? In BvS, the bombing fills both the frame and Bruce's world. The reaction shot has his mind projected to the ceiling; it doesn't look good. Round 2:  
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
That shot reminds me of buff Jesus breaking the cross.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
The avengers shot made me think Christ those are some muscles Those still look like woah muscles
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Squinty posted:I think I hate TV news product placement even more than normal product placement. Seeing Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer talk about invading space aliens or giant monsters or whatever just yanks me straight the gently caress out the film. The only thing that bothered me was incorrect usage of Nancy Grace. She uses her words but it's not something she'd give two hoots about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
the worst was Neil Degrasse Tyson just because it seemed like he was a half a second away from pitching one of those The Science of Superheroes books.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Tyson is typically the worst in everything he's in to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
seravid posted:Right. Cap learns about this crucial event through a tiny screen in a gray room, with his mildly bothered expression shot with Marvel's standard diffused lighting. The movie doesn't care, so why should he? Well not exactly, Cap doesn't learn about it, he was there and watching it post facto. The news coverage is small and annoying to him because he believes everything he does is just and right, and it's annoying that he's being scrutinized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The only thing that bothered me was incorrect usage of Nancy Grace. She uses her words but it's not something she'd give two hoots about. No one should give Nancy Grace more money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Squinty posted:I think I hate TV news product placement even more than normal product placement. Seeing Anderson Cooper or Wolf Blitzer talk about invading space aliens or giant monsters or whatever just yanks me straight the gently caress out the film. It makes me laugh but having Nancy Grace in anything is a slight. She's a horrible person all around.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
greatn posted:Well not exactly, Cap doesn't learn about it, he was there and watching it post facto. The news coverage is small and annoying to him because he believes everything he does is just and right, and it's annoying that he's being scrutinized. Captain America was at the Sokovia bombing, not the United Nations one. EDIT: Sorry I meant Lagos not Sokovia. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The only thing that bothered me was incorrect usage of Nancy Grace. She uses her words but it's not something she'd give two hoots about. On the other hand, Grace's inclusion points to an attempt by CNN to spin Superman's senate hearing into a 'celebrity murder trial' narrative. (Just as Degrasse-Tyson is deployed to spin the rescue of the Mexican factory worker into a narrative of scientific progress.) These various ideologists don't say anything strictly wrong, in a basic factual sense, and yet each of them is grossly distorting the truth on behalf of Lexcorp/Wayne Industries/Turner Broadcasting System A Subsidiary Of Time Warner. (As the joke at Lex's house goes, Wayne might as well own the Daily Planet - or CNN - if he doesn't already.) How did so many people get the mistaken impression that Superman was complicit in the bombing? Well, look at the screencap. Overtop live footage of the flaming building, you have: "BREAKING NEWS: SUPERMAN AT U.S. CAPITOL". (Note also the subtextual stock ticker, off to the side). And that re-raises the question of why Superman is the story, and not the whole proxy war between Lexcorp and the CIA. Another joke is that the real bomber is quickly "identified", and yet the media has utterly failed to explain why this all happened. Conspiracy theories run rampant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
It's kind of weird in Batman v Superman too. Since CNN appears towards the end but early on, when news is shown, it's from MNN.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:It's kind of weird in Batman v Superman too. Since CNN appears towards the end but early on, when news is shown, it's from MNN. MNN is local news for Metropolis. But anyways, why not have both?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Rewatching The Dark Knight Rises, I feel again that it's my favorite of the Nolan trilogy, even though I do acknowledge that The Dark Knight is superior in many ways, there's just something about the weight of TDKR and the way that it fits in not only as a sequel to TDK, but also as a sequel to Batman Begins, not just with direct references but with themes and imagery and even subtle musical cues that all just really works for me. Overall I feel like the Nolan trilogy is one of the few trilogies of any sort where in addition to all the individual pieces working well on their own, it actually can benefit from watching them back to back and taking it in as a single three-act story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:18
|
|
