BravestOfTheLamps posted:

That was also really funny. First it's revealed that Ego killed his mother, and he crushes the Walkman afterwards to escalate his villainy.

quote:

But here... in this movie... I fall out of love with ANDY because he hands over WOODY. Now I get it. Ultimately, that's what Woody wanted, to be with his friends with an ideal imaginative great kid with a peculiar imagination. And Andy has one of those stupid mothers that would harp about his toys. Handing him a box and a trash bag and telling him to choose. What the hell? It is bad enough that this family has never figured out the actual value of Woody in the collectibles sphere... but the idea that in the end, Andy would give up WOODY. It kinda pisses me off. Now, we've never found out why ANDY had Woody - and in all the time in that house, we've never seen Andy's father. I bring this up, because I'm writing this on FATHER'S DAY. What is Andy's father situation? The father isn't there the day the boy goes off to college? We met Andy right after the birth of Andy's sister - and there was no Father then. I like to think that Andy's father died in some manner that left Andy's mom with the money to buy the house and take care of the two kids. Whatever happened to Andy's father, he was out of the picture significantly in advance of the first film... but... I always harbored the suspicion that WOODY was Andy's father's toy. That Woody's obsessive compulsion to be there for ANDY came from that relationship he had with Andy's father. And that it was possible, that Woody never necessarily knew this. I imagine that Woody was played with by his previous owner, that he went into the attic - then perhaps when Andy's father passed away, his Grandmother went through her son's things and found Woody - remembered how much that Woody meant to Andy's father - and felt it should go to Andy. Obviously WOODY meant everything to Andy for awhile. The wallpaper, the bedsheets - all for a toy that was beyond Andy's time. But this toy meant the most. Even at the end of the movie, he finds it incredibly hard to let go of Woody, but there's something about the notion of Woody still being played with that makes him happy. The notion though of leaving childish things behind, giving your toys to the next generation... I loathe that conceit.

Mulva posted:

To be fair a lot [Not all mind you, but a lot] is intentionally copying the visuals of the action movies it is referencing. So it's easier to have a striking cinematic look when you are shot for shot remaking a perfectly done scene from another movie. Not a pass, you still have to execute, but you certainly have the blueprint in front of you. The comedy is often [Again, not always, sometimes it's a bit more subtle or nuanced] then taking the high stakes action movie shot and setting it in a quiet English town. Doesn't make it less enjoyable, but it does take it down a few notches in originality of vision.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

You seem to be taking it as a given that the Walkman is a really poignant thing, but it's also (inadvertently or not) a perfect symbol of the story's immaturity. This whole line of argumentation brings to mind Harry Knowles's review of Toy Story 3;

CelticPredator posted:

You're posting on a message board you paid money for (or someone paid money for) talking about a comic book film. You're not really a bastion of maturity.

Lt. Danger posted:

No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it.

Lt. Danger posted:

No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it.

GoldfishStew posted:

This movie was worse than the first in pretty much every way. Weird dude who asked what I didnt like about the scenery I will make a detailed post for you and you alone later.

GoldfishStew posted:

Why must this movie remain perfect to you? Why can't you like something that has flaws?

GoldfishStew posted:

Why must this movie remain perfect to you? Why can't you like something that has flaws?

GoldfishStew posted:

Why must this movie remain perfect to you? Why can't you like something that has flaws?

Steve2911 posted:

On second viewing this is probably the best Marvel movie on balance.

Not that that's a super high bar but still.

Steve2911 posted:

On second viewing this is probably the best Marvel movie on balance.

Not that that's a super high bar but still.

Lt. Danger posted:

... but a lack of visual flair is a legit criticism. No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

...that scene of Kurt Russell pontificating about how he's not alone with very undynamic shots and set just reminds one how better the equivalent sequences with Jor-El and Zod were.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

It's not a particularly radical opinion to note that Man of Steel is visually speaking probably the best of all superhero movies. You don't even need to like Zack Snyder to admit that he's a great visual stylist. It's also not very radical to note that the GotG movies aren't particularly good looking despite all the colourful sci-fi imagery - the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie for example looks superior (also looks funnier, as a comedy).

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Man of Steel is a great-looking movie. You don't like it, but to deny it's technical accomplishments is just silly.

The GotG movies are praised for being colourful, but it actually gets quite dull, and is mostly just adequate.

Even GotG2's high-lights, like the body-warping hyperspace pinball or or the arrow massacre, aren't that good. The latter for example would've been improved by dropping the pointless slow-mo walk and music.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

...What visual and narrative inventiveness is being ignored? Basically anyone you ask is going to agree that these movies are a bit by-the-numbers.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Examples from GotG2 would have to include that scene where Ego is pontificating about how he's not alone in the universe when his villainy is revealed, for one. All the shots and the sets do very little to accentuate the emotion and horror of the scene (that zoom on Star-Lord is just bad). Sure, the set looks nice, the directing is there, the acting is sufficient, but better things have been done with cinema.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

GotG movies are unimpressive past the immediate observation that they're colourful and sometimes pretty.

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.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

The GotG movies occasionally have what is basically good-looking sci-fi environments and action, but like Cnut the Great pointed out the visual storytelling is lacking at best. The one example that struck me most was when GotG's villain is called Ego and is all about egoism and solipsism, but the direction or visual design doesn't bring any of that across. it was really bad, because you can convey domineering egoism pretty easily with camera angles or close-ups.



Oddly enough, Ronan was a much more convincing egoist because he was a narcissist who was really into performing a role.

Lt. Danger posted:

As shown in Guy A. Person's video, most of the funniest shots in Hot Fuzz aren't visual references to other movies - they're original compositions and they often convey some meaning or emotion in addition to the humour. The point is, it's not an either/or thing; a movie can have good cinematography that's also funny at the same time. GotG2 is better than GotG1 is better than most Marvel movies, but a lack of visual flair is a legit criticism. No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it.

Mulva posted:

The final "Things other directors should do like him" reel has a number of things that are done in basically all his movies. So yeah, quite a few of his shots are him referencing other movies. It's just that some of the times those movies are his own. Which isn't to take away from those films, but as I said. It's easier to make a striking shot or comedic moment when you are just copying another one that was done before, sometimes by you yourself. By definition referencing your own work again and again isn't inventive. I love his trilogy [Never saw Scott Pilgrim, not really my bag], and there are some striking scenes, but there are far less original striking scenes in comparison to I don't know, lets say "reference" shots.

Yakmouth posted:

This one in particular blows my mind; how on earth would speeding up the scene and dropping its soundtrack have improved it?

Yakmouth posted:

BravestOfTheLamps hasn't been making critiques at all, only assertions. According to them, the movie's visuals are undynamic, colourful, dull, unimpressive, impressive, and bland. The only actual scenes they use to support these assertions are 'Come a Little Bit Closer' with Yondu, and Ego's 'villain moment'. Although they're somewhat vague about it my take is that in both of those scenes they felt James Gunn's cinematography undercut the emotions that he was supposedly trying to convey. Which is patiently wrong. Both of those scenes have been praised extensively in this thread as being shocking and unexpected. The first was (imo) majestic and the second genuinely horrifying.

Yakmouth posted:

With Guardians of the Galaxy v2 James Gunn built a Ferrari, and BravestOfTheLamps can't get over the fact that's not a sailboat.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

The Scene Set to Pop Song #31 was a passable space comedy scene, not some masterwork of cinema.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Instead of saying why they were good, you state how they were 'extensively' praised for being 'shocking and unexpected'. Maybe people just liked some mediocre scenes?

LividLiquid posted:

Breetai posted:

Carlosologist posted:

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

...A glitzy piece of capitalist excess vs something romantically adventurous?

Mulva posted:

there are far less original striking scenes in comparison to I don't know, lets say "reference" shots.

Guy A. Person posted:

I dunno I feel like this whole sentiment is kinda weird because on the one hand I agree he is a student of film and has certainly pulled from other sources while inventing his own techniques that he reuses. But then that makes it sound super easy so why doesn't Gunn do that? I'm not even saying he necessarily isn't, like I said I am bad at picking that stuff up especially on first view. But it seems like your argument is that Gunn is repeatedly doing shots that can't (or for some reason he won't) borrow from other films -- or create a language of visual humor that he can recycle in subsequent Guardian films like Wright did.

EDIT: Oh and he does already visually reference a few films, notably North by Northwest, Mary Poppins, and Zack Snyder's Watchmen

Guy A. Person posted:

Oh man if he did intentionally reference Willy Wonka its almost a shame he didn't later call back to the infamously creepy boat ride scene to boost the whole "something is not right and creepy here" vibes that Gamora was getting

Yakmouth posted:

So you're upgrading your score from 'not that good' to 'passable'. Okay, are you willing to explain how you think cutting its soundtrack would have improved the comedy of the scene?


My proof is empirical, here's a partial selection of quotes:


Those are genuine emotional responses. The scenes worked because they did what they set out to do: make people gasp, tear-up, etc.
What made them mediocre?

Only if you imagine that sailboats are cheap and cross-country road trips unromantic. Otherwise, no.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Well now you're just being silly - emotional reactions can actually undermine critical judgement. Instead of talking about direction, cinematography, composition, etc, you're reducing it to a question if other people cried or gasped.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Examples from GotG2 would have to include that scene where Ego is pontificating about how he's not alone in the universe when his villainy is revealed,for one. All the shots and the sets do very little to accentuate the emotion and horror of the scene (that zoom on Star-Lord is just bad).

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

The Pop Song Scene #31 is 'passable' - it meets the minimum requirements of being technically functional. It's not very good, and just another wearisome segment like the Cherry Bomb scene in the first movie. The arrow is a striking visual motif, but the scene is narratively pointless, as it doesn't accomplish much aside from being 'cool' and providing the catharsis of seeing the less marketable freakish outcasts get slaughtered (I'd love to eventually see a Youtube Dubber with, say, the Requiem for a Dream theme over it).

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Well now you're just being silly - emotional reactions can actually undermine critical judgement. Instead of talking about direction, cinematography, composition, etc, you're reducing it to a question if other people cried or gasped.

The Pop Song Scene #31 is 'passable' - it meets the minimum requirements of being technically functional. It's not very good, and just another wearisome segment like the Cherry Bomb scene in the first movie. The arrow is a striking visual motif, but the scene is narratively pointless, as it doesn't accomplish much aside from being 'cool' and providing the catharsis of seeing the less marketable freakish outcasts get slaughtered (I'd love to eventually see a Youtube Dubber with, say, the Requiem for a Dream theme over it).

Yakmouth posted:

You brought emotion into the conversation, not me.

You say the emotion was undercut. This is explicitly refuted by the testimony of people reacting to the scene. It was direction, cinematography composition, etc, that caused their reaction. And honestly, emotional reactions are all you ever have. You were 'uninspired' and 'wearied' by the movie. By all means stop using vague weasel-words and start thinking critically. You are the lamp calling the kettle black.

It was a very striking scene. I'm glad you've come around to agreeing.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Uh, okay? My favourite movies, in no particular order:

- Die Nibelungen (1924)
- Beauty and the Beast (1946)
- Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
- Adventures of Tintin
- Man of Steel
- Rules of the Game
- Dominic Deegan
- Princess Bride
- Hidden Fortress
- Lapland Odyssey
- Ardbeg
- The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

poisonpill posted:

hahahahahaha HaahahhahaHahaha hahahaha hahahahaha haa ok

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Doesn't Lamps have like actual not joke, not internet autism? He's kinda gonna have nonstandard emotional responses to things.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

I was talking about the emotions and sentiments the scene represented, and you started talking about emotional reactions as an appeal to popularity.

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

I think it's a bit weird to accuse people of autism for not liking a comic book blockbuster.