|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:GotG movies are unimpressive past the immediate observation that they're colourful and sometimes pretty. Hitch-Hiker's for example shows how forgettable GotG 1&2 are for massive sci-fi adventure extravaganzas. If it's predictable why are you still here?
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Oh, we're back here again? Yeah, agreed, Hitchhiker's Guide sure was more memorable than Guardians, which is why literally nobody but Bravest even remembered it existed until it was forced upon us yet again while Guardians is very positively viewed and has a popular sequel in theatres right now.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Oh, we're back here again? Yeah, agreed, Hitchhiker's Guide sure was more memorable than Guardians No one was making that claim.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:No one was making that claim. You said one made the other look forgettable, a supremely ironic statement.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You said one made the other look forgettable, a supremely ironic statement. I'm specifically talking about visuals. GotG 1&2 feature very impressive technical achievements, but they're in the service of very bland sci-fi. This is why the movies rely so heavily on catchy pop songs to hammer in certain scenes. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:34 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I'm specifically talking about visuals. GotG 1&2 feature very impressive technical achievements, but they're in the service of very bland sci-fi. This is why the movies rely so heavily on catchy pop songs to hammer in certain scenes. As opposed to Hitchhiker's exciting, memorable sci-fi? I mean, let's take it as a given for a moment that Hitchhiker's Guide's visuals are, just, hands down better than Guardians'. Just for the sake of argument. Do you know what you've successfully proven? That visuals don't matter in film. That movies need to be considered holistically, because otherwise Hitchhiker's Guide would have been a brilliant, memorable film instead of the boring slog it was. The only lasting visual that movie left us with was Sam Rockwell in a stupid hat getting hit in the face with a paddle. Which, admittedly, was hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy I'm starting to think he just finds the repetition soothing.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Ask him about Tintin.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Better yet, don't.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Tintin is the best comic book movie. Phylodox posted:I mean, let's take it as a given for a moment that Hitchhiker's Guide's visuals are, just, hands down better than Guardians'. Just for the sake of argument. Do you know what you've successfully proven? That visuals don't matter in film. That's plain wrong, since film is a visual medium. It's the image that draws people in and enchants them. Audience's like GotG's generic sci-fi vision, but that doesn't really make it good. It's a rather cowardly argument, admitting that a movie's visuals are mediocre but at the same time declaring it doesn't matter. I might as well declare that comic book illustrations don't matter. sean10mm posted:I'm starting to think he just finds the repetition soothing. That joke doesn't really work, since I've been mostly calling it just Hitch-Hiker's.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's plain wrong, since film is a visual medium. It's the image that draws people in and enchants them. Audience's like GotG's generic sci-fi vision, but that doesn't really make it good. Then, by your own argument, Guardians of the Galaxy must have better visuals. Or are you going to retreat into a "People are sheep, they only like Guardians because it placates them, bread and circuses, blah, blah, blah, if only everyone were as intelligent and discerning as I am" argument?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Then, by your own argument, Guardians of the Galaxy must have better visuals. Actually, as I've shown, Hitch-Hiker's has better visuals. It's a gorgeous and visually inventive movie. GotG looks amateurish in comparison, but is a more successful crowd-pleaser.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Please stop engaging BotL. He pretty clearly decided he didn't like this movie before he saw it and is trying to justify that conclusion by spouting off criticisms that have already been shown to be completely incorrect readings. He's just keeping this up because people are giving him attention.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
So what's incorrect with the criticism that the MCU can't approach sex in a healthy manner, for example? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:So what's incorrect with the criticism that the MCU can't approach sex in a healthy manner, for example? The assumption that you have any idea what healthy sex is like.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
It's also kind of hosed up to have multiple NTs (Neurotypicals) gang-up on someone from the spectrum. Just let him be. He is unable to see things from a "normal" perspective, but that means he just sees things differently and not that he sees things "incorrectly."
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Actually, as I've shown, I think Hitch-Hiker's has better visuals. I find it gorgeous and visually inventive. GotG is not to my tastes, but I can see why so many people enjoy it. Fixed that up. Wasn't terribly difficult. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's also kind of hosed up to have multiple NTs (Neurotypicals) gang-up on someone from the spectrum. Just let him be. He is unable to see things from a "normal" perspective, but that means he just sees things differently and not that he sees things "incorrectly." Is this actually the case? Because, if so, then yeah, I'll stop engaging. I don't want this to edge into bullying territory.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Can we have just one thread about a Marvel movie that doesn't turn into a giant shitpile, please
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Fixed that up. Wasn't terribly difficult. You're so afraid of 'non-opinion' statements that you're trying to rationalize it as an anti-bullying act. Hahaha e: and this is what I mean by reactive thinking. You find it necessary to disprove that Hitch-Hiker's looks good in order for GotG 1&2 to be good. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:So what's incorrect with the criticism that the MCU can't approach sex in a healthy manner, for example? k, i'll bite MCU films are made to be broadly marketed, and thus, avoid on screen sex You can go back to your train set now
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:GotG movies are unimpressive past the immediate observation that they're colourful and sometimes pretty. Hitch-Hiker's for example shows how forgettable GotG 1&2 are for massive sci-fi adventure extravaganzas. The continuing argument isn't that visuals don't matter. The repeated rebuttals to your MOS and Hitchhiker screen shots is varying degrees of 1)those are bad screenshots that don't display the actual appearance of the film, 2)those are bad screenshots that don't display valid comparisons, 3)a movie doing something better than another movie doesn't automatically make that other movie crap, 4)while visuals are important, they are not the be all and end all of what makes a good or enjoyable movie. Your response is to call anyone who disagrees objectively wrong on a subjective matter and then post more copies of the same screen shots.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The continuing argument isn't that visuals don't matter. The repeated rebuttals to your MOS and Hitchhiker screen shots is varying degrees of 1)those are bad screenshots that don't display the actual appearance of the film, 2)those are bad screenshots that don't display valid comparisons, 3)a movie doing something better than another movie doesn't automatically make that other movie crap, 4)while visuals are important, they are not the be all and end all of what makes a good or enjoyable movie. Your response is to call anyone who disagrees objectively wrong on a subjective matter and then post more copies of the same screen shots. Let's just copy this and paste it whenever BotL posts, please. Let discussion occur when someone has actually watched and thought about the movie or voices valid criticism instead of the guy who spent the movie's run-time screaming "Not funny!'", "Not Snyder!", "This isn't Hitchhiker's!", "No Sex!", to the theater screen.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
For real just don't engage with Bravest. I can't pinpoint the exact moment when it stopped being funny, but it feels like it was weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:MCU films are made to be broadly marketed, and thus, avoid on screen sex You didn't actually correct the criticism, you just explained it. According to you, MCUs' bizarro approach to sex is because of marketing concerns. Gyges posted:The continuing argument isn't that visuals don't matter. The repeated rebuttals to your MOS and Hitchhiker screen shots is varying degrees of 1)those are bad screenshots that don't display the actual appearance of the film, 2)those are bad screenshots that don't display valid comparisons, 3)a movie doing something better than another movie doesn't automatically make that other movie crap, 4)while visuals are important, they are not the be all and end all of what makes a good or enjoyable movie. Your response is to call anyone who disagrees objectively wrong on a subjective matter and then post more copies of the same screen shots. GotG 1&2 have technically accomplished and colourful visuals that are in the end pretty average, and their sci-fi vision is dull. All the appeals to how good the characters and dialogue are ring really hollow, since those are just tools to tell stories, and the story of these movies isn't that good. GotG2's confused father-son confrontation for example doesn't stand up to comparison to earlier sci-fi flicks. Franchescanado posted:the guy who spent the movie's run-time screaming "Not funny!'", "Not Snyder!", "This isn't Hitchhiker's!", "No Sex!", to the theater screen. How did you know that 
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:28 on May 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Dismissing a topic of discussion by attacking the mental health of the poster, then feigning concern while not really giving a drat is some bougie rear end ivory tower poo poo. The cult of personality that you guys have assumed in defense of your fiction is pretty gross y'all.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
raditts posted:Can we have just one thread about a Marvel movie that doesn't turn into a giant shitpile, please That's hard when, ahem, you know.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
I liked Guardian's visuals. Ego's eggship and his little floating semen gondala and ridiculous dioramas and the skullroom and Sovereign's videogame theater and especially their entrance into the finale and Rocket's forest jamboree and the big jump sequence. There were nice things to look at.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Worth seeing in 3D?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:I find it hilarious how quick some of you are to start arm-chair psycho analyzing lamp's childhood while ignoring weirdo goons who are straight up projecting their father issues onto the movie and blubbering like babies at "all the feels" instead of taking a step back and asking themselves why they're imprinting onto characters in a big budget tent pole comic book movie. The cult of personality that people adopt when hyping themselves over these movies is getting really parasitic. ruddiger posted:Discussing and deconstructing themes of fatherhood is fine and dare I say good, blubbering like a baby at "Quill has a dad just like me! He played catch! Like a dad! Which made me cry!" is empty cheerleading for an idea put forth with no critical thought behind it. ruddiger posted:Dismissing a topic of discussion by attacking the mental health of the poster, then feigning concern while not really giving a drat is some bougie rear end ivory tower poo poo. The cult of personality that you guys have assumed in defense of your fiction is pretty gross y'all. Feels like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Feels like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here... That's not his mouth...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Feels like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here... I am most definitely not. Discussing themes of fatherhood in a movie is not the same as working out whatever daddy issues you have at home. I appreciate so many goons love their dads, but to shut down valid comparisons of other movies dealing with fatherhood (Man of Steel) or plugging your ears at themes you're not comfortable discussing in children's superhero movies (your parents are loving when you're not around) is not constructive in the least. I'm also not attacking anyone's personal resolve, except for again, the cult of personality that everyone adopts because they want to be a part of this cultural zeitgeist, as if constructive criticism is somehow an attack against this idealogy instead of a valid complaint about the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
There are plenty of legit things to criticize about Guardians of the Galaxy. I just haven't seen any of them brought up by BravestOfTheLamps. I mean, Thanos alone threatens to derail the whole movie. He's in it just enough to be distracting, but not enough to be an actual threat or, y'know, character. He's in that Goldilocks zone of forced character inclusion.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Worth seeing in 3D? Absolutely. I was blown away by the sense of depth and scale it gave some of the shots. Granted, the last 3D film I saw was that Jaws sequel, so I'm easily impressed. But I thought it was awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:I am most definitely not No see your personal attacks are cool because you don't like the actions of the people you are attacking, but other people's personal attacks aren't because you want to seem morally superior.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Oh my god this is the most tedious argument I've ever read
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:All the appeals to how good the characters and dialogue are ring really hollow, since those are just tools to tell stories This says so much.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
I would like to chime in and say I will enjoy seeing the attractive movie stars get more sexual in these movies..preferably not the Raccon though. The Duck is fine...I think Lea Thompson still gets gigs At least they have female gaze shots so I don't even know why peeps think there isn't some degree of sex in the movie. Evans and Hemsworth for some.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
*BravestoftheLamps kramers into the GotG2 thread* "This movie is trash and it doesn't hold a candle to the superior man of steel" "It's nothing like man of steel" "Superman murders his father and impregnates martha, batman's mother!" "Wait that's not-" *BravestoftheLamps kramers into the doobie hotdog thread* "THIS IS TERRIBLE FOOD! Why doesn't it taste like salmon?" "Because it's made from beef..." *Bravest posts pictures of hamburgers* "LOOK AT THESE SUPERIOR VERSIONS OF HOT DOGS" "But a hot dog isn't a hamb-" *BravestoftheLamps kramers into the kramer thread* "Kramer is terrible! Look at how short he is, why is he so insecure?" "Kramer isn-" "KRAMER HAD A CHOCOLATE BOBKA ON A FISHING LINE WHILE WEARING A PUFFY SHIRT" *THE KRAMER IS TOO MUCH* *The thread implodes, sucking Bravestof theLamps down with it, to eat yet another 6 hour probation. All is quiet once more*
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
It'd be nice if there was a moment of pathos in Infinity War where Chris Pratt reunites with Gregg Henry. Don't see him listed anywhere, but unless it's 4 hours long that movie will be entirely too busy for it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
 WARNING SPOILERS AHEAD I just saw this and I think I agree with some of the comments the jokes went on too long (like Groot trying to steal the prototype) or just fell flat. I don't understand the complaints about Drax though, dude was hilarious and I'm glad his performance in the first film wasn't a fluke. Also the Sovereign must be some of the most inept pilots in the galaxy. How do you fail to kill what looked like a mining vessel with like a thousand to one advantage? I feel like that could have been better handled if Ego spawned liked, antibodies or something for the final battle for the rest of the team to battle instead of a drone army showing up. And did I miss the reason why Ego had to seed women to create a second being who could control the light? He can clearly create life as seen in Mantis, why not just create another being to control the light? Or create a being to gently caress and raise that kid to control the light with him? Why does he need two beings to activate it in the first place? He basically has control of matter on a molecular level but genetic manipulation is out of the question? Maybe this post is better fit in the irrationally irritating movie thread
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2017 00:06
|
|
