|
Yakmouth posted:I always assumed that if Origins:Wolverine had been better received then Storm would have gotten a solo movie as well. (edit: The other prospect of course is that those characters might not even end up being in the film, or else be whitewashed if they are. Can't discount that possibility!  )Beyond that, Storm could totally carry a film, though you'd have to get a pretty top-notch actress. Thankfully those are in heavy supply these days. BrianWilly fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Mar 2, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
stay and rot in the south park thread you pretentious douche
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
I'm really excited to see Logan. So far this year I've only seen Get Out, John Wick 2, and Lego Batman. All pretty great. I'll be really sad if Wolverine is the first one to let me down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Wolfsbane is the loving worst and Maisie Williams is awful. That movie will be torture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
They probably can't use the name due to the stupid talent show, but I'd love to see X-Factor as a movie or TV series, with Jamie Madrox employing a ragtag team of mutants in his detective agency, investigating mutant-related crimes and conspiracies. Peter David's mid-'00s X-Factor series made Madrox my second-favorite Marvel character (after Daredevil), and a movie or show could be a great mix of standard superhero action, noir, and comedy -- almost like a Shane Black kind of thing. And I'd cast one of the most underrated, versatile actors out there to play Madrox and all his "dupes," embodying different skill-sets and facets of his personality: Enver Gjokaj, from Dollhouse and Agent Carter. I've never been a fan of Wolfsbane or Strong Guy, especially from that run, but it would be awesome if they round out the team with Siryn (great powers), M, Layla Miller, Rictor, and Longshot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Ireallylikeeggs posted:So as far as I can tell, all of this boring recalcitrant goober debate boils down to a fundamental difference in taste: do you prefer the HOW of a movie, or the WHAT of a movie? Obviously I disagree on the story of MoS and BvS being told poorly. I think it told it just fine, but from my anecdotal experience people have a harder time parsing the subtler elements of Snyders stories because he has a habit of conveying information visually and through symbolic imagery rather than dialogue. I think it ties in to what I said to purple ray earlier, if people didn't understand or read the movie 'correctly', is it the producers fault or the viewers? Is it Verhoevens fault that most viewers didnt get that Starship troopers was satire? Is it Tarantinos fault if people dont see the parallel between them and the nazis in Basterds? Obviously the best movies are those that can be entertaining even if the viewer entierly miss the subtext (Alien, Inglorious basterds) but still have a depth to them beyond the obvious surface reading. BvS clearly falls short of this benchmark. But even though it's not to everyones taste that doesn't make it a bad movie. Kinda like salty liquorice candy. I know I'm late to the guardians discussion, but one of the things that really bugged me about the movie was the prison portion of the movie. At some point, the racoon makes some sort of comment about how only the worst of the worst are in there and even the guards are totally evil assholes! Thats when you know that everyone there is going to be brutally murdered. Its like they had thst line in there so we wouldnt feel bad when our heroes murder them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:And *shudder* Magik. What the hell is wrong with Magik?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
McCloud posted:I know I'm late to the guardians discussion, but one of the things that really bugged me about the movie was the prison portion of the movie. At some point, the racoon makes some sort of comment about how only the worst of the worst are in there and even the guards are totally evil assholes! Thats when you know that everyone there is going to be brutally murdered. Its like they had thst line in there so we wouldnt feel bad when our heroes murder them. Well you can't have the audience empathise too much with with broken, marginalised people. That's why there's no emphasis on that one prisoner talking over the space-phone with their family. And why they die without impact. The insistence that the Guardians are "broken people" coming together is puzzling. Their "brokenness" is almost completely nominal - Drax, Gamora, and Rocket express their dysfunctions through exposition instead of action (a character moment as major as Gamora's betrayal of Ronan and Thanos is is also after the fact in exposition). Drax's desire for vengeance is the only aspect of their "brokenness" that affects the plot. Otherwise they're fairly functional. Quill, as already observed, is the best example, because his being a manchild poseur struggling with a traumatic upbringing causes no setback or turmoil aside from slight mockery. Groot never even enters the equation. None of them are toxic, so to say. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
You just fundamentally don't understand the movie, then. Just about every one of the Guardians' actions is driven by how sad, mistrustful, lonely, and broken they all are*. Drax actively sabotages their mission and almost gets everyone killed. Gamora pulls a knife on Peter because of his "pelvic sorcery". Rocket nearly kills his teammates Drax and Gamora out of pain, rage, and self-loathing. Yet through all of that, there's an almost palpable sense of longing, that these characters recognize each other as kindred spirits and so desperately want to trust, but they can't. And Peter is the one caught in the middle, the one most eager and ready to open himself up to these people, but he needs to grow up and be the leader. *Except Groot, yeah, he's the most at peace with himself of all of them. He's also the one willing to sacrifice his life for his friends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You just fundamentally don't understand the movie, then. Just about every one of the Guardians' actions is driven by how sad, mistrustful, lonely, and broken they all are*. Drax actively sabotages their mission and almost gets everyone killed. Gamora pulls a knife on Peter because of his "pelvic sorcery". Rocket nearly kills his teammates Drax and Gamora out of pain, rage, and self-loathing. Yet through all of that, there's an almost palpable sense of longing, that these characters recognize each other as kindred spirits and so desperately want to trust, but they can't. And Peter is the one caught in the middle, the one most eager and ready to open himself up to these people, but he needs to grow up and be the leader. It's undeniable that GotG has an exposition problem: tons of vital characterisation and storytelling are told instead of shown, and doesn't affect the plot beyond set-up. How is "the palpable sense of longing" shown in the movie? Rocket's big character moment about his self-loathing is exposition, and he's immediately back to himself in the following scenes. Gamora decided to break free of the genocidal warlord that raised her and become her own person; this happened offscreen and is told through exposition. The pelvic sorcery bit is really just an out of place joke. Drax's longing for a family is also told through exposition when he tells that he hasn't had friends for a while. His screw-up at Knowhere is the one exception for a character's "brokenness" affecting the plot. He's also the only character with a convincing arc that plays out onscreen (only seeks vengeance -> has a place to belong). Quill's longing for his mother plays a small part in the climax and in the epilogue. Their brokenness is almost completely nominal. The exposition problem extends to villains, too. Ronan's ideological crusade remains completely abstract because it's told entirely through exposition. He is angry and vengeful due to a bloody galactic conflict that happened offscreen. Thanos is the most dangerous person in the galaxy, and this is told through some exposition. The Ravagers are the only ones that do come off as genuinely crazy and flawed people, because their characterization jives completely with what they do: they're dangerous assholes and they act the part throughout the movie. One contrasting example can be found in the pre-movie comics: there's a plot point about how Quill is so desperate to be the hero and save the galaxy that he telepathically manipulates the rest of the Guardians to stick together as a team. When they found out, they turn their backs on him and he's left alone. That's something that a "broken" person would do and it affects the comics' plot. The anime Cowboy Bebop comes to mind too as a story about broken people on crazy space adventures, especially because it does something exactly the opposite and more convincing than the Guardians: the misfit crew of bounty hunters never actually become the family they could be. There's a great, unspoken tragedy running through the series about how the characters really are too different and withdrawn to ever really get along, and they part ways as the same rootless, lonely souls they started out as. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
You keep complaining that their brokenness doesn't effect the plot when it quite obviously is the plot. I'm sorry they're not irredeemably crippled and doomed to be miserable loners? If that's the only way you can see a movie as being good or having poignant themes, then no, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't for you. Most movies aren't for you. And if you're going to dismiss character beats as "out of place jokes" then fine, but don't cry that they don't exist. A character literally bathes in the blood of his hated enemies and states multiple times that he's motivated by the death of his father, father's father, etc. but he's "too vague". And yes, some things are stated by the characters. "Show, don't tell" isn't some inviolable rule. Sometimes characters talk. Get over it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Obviously I disagree on the story of MoS and BvS being told poorly. I think it told it just fine, but from my anecdotal experience people have a harder time parsing the subtler elements of Snyders stories because he has a habit of conveying information visually and through symbolic imagery rather than dialogue. I feel the problem isn't that people don't pick up on the symbolic imagery, as it really isn't all that subtle. It's that the text of the movie actively contradicts any subtext. Superman, not surprisingly, is shrouded in Jesus metaphor, so it's easy to assume between that and prior depictions of the character that he loves humanity and saves people because it's the right thing to do. But if that is the intent, why do we have scenes of Ma Kent telling Clark he doesn't owe the world anything? Why does ghost Pa Kent give Clark a lecture about the meaninglessness of hero cake? We get reason after reason why Clark should just give up being a hero for humanity, yet never an instance of him expressing why he should, or at least, wants to do so. And let's be honest. These deeper critiques are ultimately meaningless in the face of the movies biggest problem; it's boring. Two thirds of the movie are exposition and set up, yet for the most part lack elements that keep an audience engaged. We get few action scenes, no moments of levity, barely any character exploration beyond Batman's anti-Superman rants, no mystery to solve, no romantic subplot (unless a shared bath with Lois counts), not even just characters bouncing off each other to comedic or dramatic end. That could still, theoretically, work with a good enough payoff, but all we get is a short fight consisting of Batman tossing Superman around, a glimpse of a better Batman movie, and a CGI brawl with a troll. If that's enough for you to be personally entertained, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with liking the movie in spite of it's flaws. But for many, it was a slog and a let down. Edit: I will agree Guardians does lean heavily on exposition, especially in regards to Ronin and Gamora, but that's inevitable to some extent for movies with ensemble casts. You only have so much screen time to properly develop both the characters and plot, and in Guardians both suffer as a result. glitchwraith fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Glitch nails it. I love a movie with layers and subtext and open for interperation. I saw Muholland Drive a couple weeks ago and loving loved it and I keep bringing it up to people because I'm still thinking about that movie several days later. But for me personally, a movie has to be....you know, good and edited well and watchable for me to give a poo poo to then analyze it at a deeper level. BVS isn't an absolutely horrible movie, but they desperately needed a good editor to trim the fat. Between the editing, the Eisenberg's Lex, and a really poor reason for Superman to fight Batman (Bat's support was really obvious and actually well done), the movie just fell flat. Also all the Wonder Woman poo poo is just kind of there and adds almost nothing to the story. You could take Wonder Woman and the quicktime files out completely and it doesn't impact the movie at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
I still think Wonder Woman should have been Amanda Waller.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
glitchwraith posted:But if that is the intent, why do we have scenes of Ma Kent telling Clark he doesn't owe the world anything? Why does ghost Pa Kent give Clark a lecture about the meaninglessness of hero cake? We get reason after reason why Clark should just give up being a hero for humanity, yet never an instance of him expressing why he should, or at least, wants to do so. I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of those conversations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You keep complaining that their brokenness doesn't effect the plot when it quite obviously is the plot. I'm sorry they're not irredeemably crippled and doomed to be miserable loners? If that's the only way you can see a movie as being good or having poignant themes, then no, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't for you. Most movies aren't for you. The plot of GotG is that a space adventurer gets his hand on a magical artifact that a terrorist death-cultist wants to use to destroy a planet, and he forms a bunch of misfits to get through in one piece and save the day. The "brokenness" of the characters is ancillary to that. The story has a whole has a lot of talk about getting together and being friends, but the plot doesn't support those motifs well. And lol at Cowboy Bebop being too bleak. Phylodox posted:A character literally bathes in the blood of his hated enemies and states multiple times that he's motivated by the death of his father, father's father, etc. but he's "too vague". And yes, some things are stated by the characters. "Show, don't tell" isn't some inviolable rule. Sometimes characters talk. Get over it. GotG has too much exposition. It shouldn't be really controversial. Like with Ronan: how does bathing in the blood of his enemies convey that he's motivated by a conflict that has claimed the lives of his father and ancestors, as the exposition states? All the imagery of his character is that he's a sinister death-god, but in plot terms he's just a terrorist. The story doesn't build up on the image, and the image doesn't build up on the story (Thanos even dismisses his boring politics). In Star Wars for contrast, Darth Vader's character is introduced by him ruthlessly interrogating a rebel soldier for some stolen weapon plans. They talk, but there's no exposition about the characters. Nobody says that Darth is the top enforcer of a fascist empire (Thanos in GotG is introduced in exactly this way). glitchwraith posted:I feel the problem isn't that people don't pick up on the symbolic imagery, as it really isn't all that subtle. It's that the text of the movie actively contradicts any subtext. Superman, not surprisingly, is shrouded in Jesus metaphor, so it's easy to assume between that and prior depictions of the character that he loves humanity and saves people because it's the right thing to do. But if that is the intent, why do we have scenes of Ma Kent telling Clark he doesn't owe the world anything? Why does ghost Pa Kent give Clark a lecture about the meaninglessness of hero cake? Superman is a different character from Ma and Pa Kent, who are stating their own opinions as characters. "Not owing the world anything" and "meaninglessness of hero cake" also don't contradict "Jesus metaphor" or that Superman loves humanity. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I still think Wonder Woman should have been Amanda Waller. That would have made more sense for the earlier scenes. But now I'm imagining Viola Davis in gladiatorial combat with Doomsday. Still an improvement. MacheteZombie posted:I think this is a bit of a misinterpretation of those conversations. It's true that Ma Kent seems to be arguing Superman should do what he wants regardless of what others expect, which would have made it a great time for Superman to express what he wants. That doesn't happen. I'm still not sure what the purpose of the Pa Kent dream was. A reflection on good intentions and consequences? It still comes off as Pa Kent once again arguing Superman shouldn't be a hero. Edit: BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman is a different character from Ma and Pa Kent, who are stating their own opinions as characters. "Not owing the world anything" and "meaninglessness of hero cake" also don't contradict "Jesus metaphor" or that Superman loves humanity. Absent Superman expressing his own opinion, it is not unreasonable to view Superman's parents as outer expressions of his inner thoughts, especially sense one of those parents appear in his dream. It may not contradict the Jesus metaphor, but it does muddy it. glitchwraith fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The plot of GotG is that a space adventurer gets his hand on a magical artifact that a terrorist death-cultist wants to use to destroy a planet, and he forms a bunch of misfits to get through in one piece and save the day. The "brokenness" of the characters is ancillary to that. The story has a whole has a lot of talk about getting together and being friends, but the plot doesn't support those motifs well. Again, being, just, incredibly superficial. The movie is about a terrorist who's driven by pain and loss to try and annihilate an entire culture. He is opposed by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives being isolated by pain and loss, and must overcome those feelings to band together and stop the bad guy. Seriously, this is loving basic. quote:GotG has too much exposition. It shouldn't be really controversial. Like with Ronan: how does bathing in the blood of his enemies convey that he's motivated by a conflict that has claimed the lives of his father and ancestors, which is conveyed in a few shouty expository lines? All the imagery of his character is that he's a sinister death-god, but in plot terms he's just a terrorist. The story doesn't build up on the image, and the image doesn't build up on the story (Thanos even dismisses his boring politics). There's tons of exposition in Star Wars. Like...tons. Obi-Wan never loving shuts up about the Jedi and the Force. Why didn't they just show the conflict that led to the Empire dominating the galaxy*? Guardians of the Galaxy is the same. They show some things, they tell some things. It's fine. Get over it. glitchwraith posted:That would have made more sense for the earlier scenes. I forget if I had this discussion in this thread or the CineD one, but Davis would just stare Doomsday down until he apologized. *Oh, wait, they did. Almost thirty years later. And it sucked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
The plot of The World's End is that five friends go back to their hometown and get embroiled in a conspiracy of alien robots. The "alcoholism" of the main character is ancillary to that. The story has a whole has a lot of talk about being trapped in cycles of nostalgia and self-harm but the plot doesn't support those motifs well.
Arist fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
I mean, I know you don't believe it, but what an insanely loving stupid thing to post
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Again, being, just, incredibly superficial. The movie is about a terrorist who's driven by pain and loss to try and annihilate an entire culture. He is opposed by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives being isolated by pain and loss, and must overcome those feelings to band together and stop the bad guy. This isn't something that the movie conveys well at all. The villain, for example, never expresses any pain or loss, so he's not really driven by it. There's a literal song-and-dance routine early in the movie where the hero shows how much he doesn't care for the death and devastation around him. Phylodox posted:There's tons of exposition in Star Wars. Like...tons. Obi-Wan never loving shuts up about the Jedi and the Force. Why didn't they just show the conflict that led to the Empire dominating the galaxy*? Guardians of the Galaxy is the same. They show some things, they tell some things. It's fine. Get over it. And it relies on the interplay of image and text. The opening crawl exposits that there's a Galactic Empire and a Rebellion against it, and we're immediately shown that with the huge, overbearing Star Destroyer, and the Stormtroopers squashing all resistance. They actually do show what the conflicts driving the characters are. You missed that characterisation was the topic here. Star Wars doesn't characterise much by exposition. Darth Vader's characterisation as a villain builds on action and images. Ronan is a mix of abstract but shouty politicking and super-edgy aesthetic. Arist posted:The plot of The World's End is that five friends go back to their hometown and get embroiled in a conspiracy of alien robots. The "alcoholism" of the main character is ancillary to that. The story has a whole has a lot of talk about being trapped in cycles of nostalgia and self-harm but the plot doesn't support those motifs well. Lol. GotG is just a straight-forward space adventure with lame storytelling, and some unfortunate themes. It's not The World's End. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Cowboy Beebop is better than GotG, and I'm gonna watch it again now
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This isn't something that the movie conveys well at all. The villain, for example, never expresses any pain or loss, so he's not really driven by it. There's a literal song-and-dance routine early in the movie where the hero shows how much he doesn't care for the death and devastation around him. He literally wants to destroy an entire world. Just because he doesn't say "I am sad and angry that you killed my family members" doesn't mean it's not implicit. And Quill uses the music his mother gave him to blot out the ancient devastation around him. He uses it to hide from unpleasant truths. Seriously, for someone who complains about "telling, not showing" you seem to have an awfully hard time picking up on the things they show. But, of course, you're just going to say, "Well, they didn't really show those things!!!" Except they did. But whatever, I'm just having fun going back and re-examining scenes from this fantastic loving movie. For example, I went back and watched the prison escape scene to see all the people the Guardians apparently brutally murdered. I counted maybe two possible casualties. They just smashed a lot of drones. quote:And it relies on the interplay of image and text. The opening crawl exposits that there's a Galactic Empire and a Rebellion against it, and we're immediately shown that with the huge, overbearing Star Destroyer, and the Stormtroopers squashing all resistance. They actually do show what the conflicts driving the characters are. So...they don't tell us, they...tell us in text? And there's tons of characterization done implicitly. Again, I just watched the prison escape scene and there's a moment where Quill sees Rocket's mutilated back for the first time and the camera lingers on his face, showing deep empathy and sorrow. That's a fantastic character moment. But gently caress me, right? Marvel movies are dumb and crass and artless. Or, as you put it: quote:Lol. GotG is just a straight-forward space adventure with lame characterization and unsatisfying themes. Seriously, just shut up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Lol you edited your post because it was too polite, you're such a loving loser
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
We are Groot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:He literally wants to destroy an entire world. Just because he doesn't say "I am sad and angry that you killed my family members" doesn't mean it's not implicit. He's driven by anger and ideology. You can guess that they stem from pain and loss, but he doesn't express any pain and loss anywhere. His driving emotion is anger, his dialogue expresses anger, and his actions further his anger. He's motivated by anger. Phylodox posted:But whatever, I'm just having fun going back and re-examining scenes from this fantastic loving movie. For example, I went back and watched the prison escape scene to see all the people the Guardians apparently brutally murdered. I counted maybe two possible casualties. They just smashed a lot of drones. The Guardians don't murder everyone in the prison, that's Ronan. That the broken, marginalized prisoners end up a minor blot bump undermines the themes of love and acceptance. Phylodox posted:And there's tons of characterization done implicitly. Again, I just watched the prison escape scene and there's a moment where Quill sees Rocket's mutilated back for the first time and the camera lingers on his face, showing deep empathy and sorrow. That's a fantastic character moment. But gently caress me, right? Marvel movies are dumb and crass and artless. Or, as you put it: Yes, there' is non-exposition characterization in GotG. The problem is that there's still too much exposition in place of visual, onscreen storytelling, like how Gamora's betrayal of Ronan/Thanos is conveyed. Phylodox posted:Seriously, just shut up. Arist posted:Lol you edited your post because it was too polite, you're such a loving loser Controversial opinion: GotG isn't nearly as good as any of the Blood and Ice Cream movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:He's driven by anger and ideology. You can guess that they stem from pain and loss, but he doesn't express any pain and loss anywhere. His driving emotion is anger, his dialogue expresses anger, and his actions further his anger. He's motivated by anger. Why do you think they included the line about his father and his father's father and his father's father? And how he can't forgive Xandar for their deaths? In a movie with a protagonist who can't get over the death of his mother? Do you seriously not see any parallels there? quote:The Guardians don't murder everyone in the prison, that's Ronan. That the broken, marginalized prisoners end up a minor blot bump undermines the themes of love and acceptance. How? If anything, it reinforces it, since Ronan's uncompromising hate destroys the outcasts around him, while Quill's draws them together and empowers them. quote:Yes, there' is non-exposition characterization in GotG. The problem is that there's still too much exposition in place of visual, onscreen storytelling, like Gamora's betrayal of Ronan/Thanos. There's plenty of both. Again...get. Over. It. quote:Controversial opinion: GotG isn't nearly as good as any of the Blood and Cornetto movies. Controversial opinion: there are lots of good movies, and some movies being good doesn't mean others aren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Why do you think they included the line about his father and his father's father and his father's father? And how he can't forgive Xandar for their deaths? In a movie with a protagonist who can't get over the death of his mother? Do you seriously not see any parallels there? The line is superfluous exposition. It's not connected to action or imagery. It's a small parallel with Quill, but he could be shouting about how thousands of dead Kree heroes demand vengeance without changing anything else being changed. There's no scenes of Ronan dealing with what his ancestors mean to him, like with Quill and his mother. The imagery of death he's associated with is cold and impersonal, which reduces his emotional and psychological depth. Ronan even scorns Drax for seeking vengeance against his family, so his talk about family ends up being mere rhetoric. Phylodox posted:How? If anything, it reinforces it, since Ronan's uncompromising hate destroys the outcasts around him, while Quill's draws them together and empowers them. Quill doesn't want to be with freakish outcasts, that's why he betrays the Ravagers. He's not a saviour-figure at all. Phylodox posted:There's plenty of both. Again...get. Over. It. The characterisation is just lame because of the exposition. They're decent characters otherwise, except for Gamora who's boring, and Quill who's not properly used as a satirical figure. emphasising. things. through. punctuation. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The line is superfluous exposition. It's not connected to action or imagery. It's a small parallel with Quill, but he could be shouting about how thousands of dead Kree heroes demand vengeance without changing anything else being changed. There's no scenes of Ronan dealing with what his ancestors mean to him, like with Quill and his mother. The imagery of death he's associated with is cold and impersonal, which reduces his emotional and psychological depth. Ronan even scorns Drax for seeking vengeance against his family, so his talk about family ends up being mere rhetoric. Nothing is characterization if you just choose to say it's not. He didn't mention thousands of Kree. He mentioned his father specifically. It's an intentional choice on Gunn's part and a huge parallel. It shows what can happen when you don't let go. You become calcified, bitter, angry, hateful, destructive. Exactly what Ronan is. quote:Quill doesn't want to be with freakish outcasts, that's why he betrays the Ravagers. He's not a saviour-figure at all. You keep ignoring the actual context of the movie, wherein the Ravagers are using Quill. They're an abusive family. They're not open to Quill emotionally. He can't grow to be a leader in that atmosphere. Even Yondu, the most sympathetic to Quill, tries to be a kind of stunted father figure, but a father figure isn't what Quill wants or needs at that point. He needs to grow up, not stay the child. quote:The characterisation is just lame because of the exposition. They're decent characters otherwise, except for Gamora who's boring, and Quill who's not properly used as a satirical figure. There's nothing wrong with the characterization. Gunn likes to pepper his films with lots of dialogue. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, because he balances it out with visuals as well. Quill isn't satirical. He's ludicrously earnest. Gamora isn't tremendously fleshed out, comparatively, but she's not boring, either. She's the straight man in a group of goofy characters. She fills a thankless position in a not terrible way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Shut up nerd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Quill doesn't want to be with freakish outcasts, that's why he betrays the Ravagers. He's not a saviour-figure at all. *man breaks out of prison, hangs out with racoon and walking tree* Man, that guy really hates freakish outcasts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
How I long for the days of few posts but actual updates
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Ronan actually does literally express his loss and regret. He straight up says that he is ashamed and angry that his family died in this endless war and that the Kree making peace made them die for nothing. He says that all he had was family and honor and Xandar took his family and the Kree leaders took their honor. He's so obsessed and crazy about it that he decides to basically suicide bomb a planet and betray Thanos when he realizes that Thanos isn't going to blow up all of Xandar with the Infinity Stone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Ronan actually does literally express his loss and regret. You're mostly right, but Ronan never realizes that Thanos isn't going to blow up Xandar, because the movie never indicates in any way that Thanos wasn't going to blow up Xandar. Ronan betrayed Thanos because he realised that, with an infinity stone in his posession, he could take out Xandar himself and maybe kick Thanos out of that sweet spacechair when he's done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
haitfais posted:You're mostly right, but Ronan never realizes that Thanos isn't going to blow up Xandar, because the movie never indicates in any way that Thanos wasn't going to blow up Xandar. Ronan betrayed Thanos because he realised that, with an infinity stone in his posession, he could take out Xandar himself and maybe kick Thanos out of that sweet spacechair when he's done. Thanos says that he will help him defeat Xandar in exchange for the orb. Ronan figures out what the orb is and tells Thanos, "You never told me what this could do. I can blow up the entire planet. I can get my revenge myself. gently caress you." He knows that if the stone touches the ground, that it would blow up the planet and goes down to do it, knowing that he would die too. Doesn't seem like he was bent on taking Thanos' chair or that Thanos was planning on blowing up the planet with the stone. There are some actual minor news tidbits: - Michael Rooker says Yondu is in Infinity War. - James Gunn again says that Adam Warlock, Thanos, and Infinity Stones are not in Guardians 2 in any way, shape, or form. - Brie Larson says that Captain Marvel is going to be a "bridge" movie that is half cosmic and half on earth. - There is going to be an announcement this year of a 3rd MCU movie in 2020 to take the spot of the previous Inhumans release date. It's a November date. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Nothing is characterization if you just choose to say it's not. He didn't mention thousands of Kree. He mentioned his father specifically. It's an intentional choice on Gunn's part and a huge parallel. It shows what can happen when you don't let go. You become calcified, bitter, angry, hateful, destructive. Exactly what Ronan is. it is characterisation in the form of a line of exposition, but it's overshadowed by the rest of his characterisation as a shouty death-cultist, even though it's nominally his primary motivation. His character is externalized as the cold, impersonal space of his space-ship, and as faceless soldiers. He's either composed or blustering, which appears performed and rhetorical; there's no pain or loss to him. His grievance appears abstract because that's what it is. Quill and Ronan aren't paralleled by loss, since there's no emotional component to Ronan's character. He represents Death. Even then he's unimpressive: he' still just a terrorist, and he has minimal interactions with the heroes to establish any sort of dynamic with them. The Ravagers represent the discomfort and demands of life, which is why they're marginal and counterproductive to the fantasy of space adventure. The reason he couldn't be a leader is because they stand for things, even though they're terrible, while the Guardians are a chance to get what's life denied to them. But beyond that, his shift from wanting to sell the Orb to stopping Ronan is his biggest flaw as a character, because in between those points there should've been an epiphany about how meaningless his Star-Lord fantasy was. Phylodox posted:There's nothing wrong with the characterization. Gunn likes to pepper his films with lots of dialogue. You're confusing all dialogue with exposition. Gamora's character arc being reduced to some after-the-fact exposition is a very bad choice. Quill isn't earnest at all, he knowingly bullshits people. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He straight up says that he is ashamed and angry that his family died in this endless war and that the Kree making peace made them die for nothing. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He knows that if the stone touches the ground, that it would blow up the planet and goes down to do it, knowing that he would die too. Doesn't seem like he was bent on taking Thanos' chair or that Thanos was planning on blowing up the planet with the stone. He's not particularly crazy or irrational. His anger is rhetorical, and the lines explaining his motivations are part of a speech to a ritual victim. He explicitly says he's coming after Thanos next after he destroys Xandar. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Is this an SMG parachute account? Can you gently caress off back to CD now please?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:Is this an SMG parachute account? Can you gently caress off back to CD now please? They do the exact same gimmick across like 4 other subforums. It's just that somehow this is the only thread that bites (or maybe his posts are more aggressively stupid here). I actually like the GOTG analysis, but I think you can post those separate from quoting blocks of text from some guy who is not interested in a real argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:54
|
|
