|
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. You are very weird. But not in an endearing way like Drax. In a bad way.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 21:28 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 00:45 |
|
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;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.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 21:53 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 22:02 |
|
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; 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.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 22:12 |
|
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.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 22:30 |
|
I'm not sure that maturity is even a good thing in the context of pulp sci-fi adventure comedy. I would definitely say that a lot of the comedy of Quill's character is at the expense of his attempts to appear more mature than he actually is.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 22:43 |
|
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.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 22:49 |
|
Lt. Danger posted:No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it. To the shock of everyone, I did.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 22:54 |
|
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. Not a weirdo, just want you to back up your empty complaints.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 23:06 |
|
Why must this movie remain perfect to you? Why can't you like something that has flaws? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? May 18, 2017 23:26 |
|
GoldfishStew posted:Why must this movie remain perfect to you? Why can't you like something that has flaws? The thread is about the movie. Feel free to dislike the movie, but if you don't want to talk about it, just don't. Please don't make it about the other posters who do want to talk about it.
|
# ? May 18, 2017 23:39 |
|
GoldfishStew posted:Why must this movie remain perfect to you? Why can't you like something that has flaws? Why can't you like something with flaws?
|
# ? May 18, 2017 23:45 |
|
GoldfishStew posted:Why must this movie remain perfect to you? Why can't you like something that has flaws? This movie, unlike your posts, has several redeeming qualities despite its flaws
|
# ? May 18, 2017 23:51 |
|
On second viewing this is probably the best Marvel movie on balance. Not that that's a super high bar but still.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 00:09 |
|
lol Jesus loving Christ.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 00:11 |
|
Steve2911 posted:On second viewing this is probably the best Marvel movie on balance. Thor 1 is still tops imho but im a sucker for shakespeare.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 00:15 |
|
Steve2911 posted:On second viewing this is probably the best Marvel movie on balance. I mean, I saw it again at 11am on a whim to kill time, and I still cried my eyes out so. I dunno. It's pretty dang amazing?
|
# ? May 19, 2017 00:36 |
|
Lt. Danger posted:... but a lack of visual flair is a legit criticism. No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it. Any criticism can be legit if supported, but BravestOfTheLamps made an unsubstantiated claim using vague terminology based on what I maintain is a flawed interpretation of the film's intent. Here's the entirety of their argument regarding the cinematography of GotG v2: 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. 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. Here's round 2 of their 'critiques': 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. With Guardians of the Galaxy v2 James Gunn built a Ferrari, and BravestOfTheLamps can't get over the fact that's not a sailboat.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 00:36 |
|
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. 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.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 00:46 |
|
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. 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 fucked around with this message at 01:10 on May 19, 2017 |
# ? May 19, 2017 01:08 |
|
Yakmouth posted:This one in particular blows my mind; how on earth would speeding up the scene and dropping its soundtrack have improved it? The Scene Set to Pop Song #31 was a passable space comedy scene, not some masterwork of cinema. 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. 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? 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. ...A glitzy, overhyped piece of capitalist excess vs something romantically adventurous? BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 01:28 on May 19, 2017 |
# ? May 19, 2017 01:13 |
|
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? 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? BravestOfTheLamps posted:...A glitzy piece of capitalist excess vs something romantically adventurous?
|
# ? May 19, 2017 01:56 |
|
Mulva posted:there are far less original striking scenes in comparison to I don't know, lets say "reference" shots. This is straight up unsupportable. I don't know how you've gotten this idea.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 03:07 |
|
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. I've also mentioned that the Ego introducing his planet scene seems to reference the "If You Want To View Paradise" scene from Willy Wonka. It reminded me of it, anyway. Seems fitting for Ego to try and be Willy Wonka to Star-Lord's Charlie and woo him into wanting "the factory".
|
# ? May 19, 2017 03:55 |
|
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
|
# ? May 19, 2017 04:06 |
|
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 But Willy Wonka was deliberately trying to creep everyone out as a test of faith, so he played it up, while Ego was trying to hide his own creep factor to keep his genocide operation running smoothly.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 05:32 |
|
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? 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). BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 09:40 on May 19, 2017 |
# ? May 19, 2017 09:33 |
|
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. You brought emotion into the conversation, not me. 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).
|
# ? May 19, 2017 15:13 |
|
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. For context, will you just list 5-10 movies you consider your personal favorites / the best movies you've seen? You can quantify it however you like, I'm just incredibly curious as to your context of what constitutes as good/great/masterpiece on an emotional/technical level. Or if you can't say anything nice about a movie, you can do a list of 5-10 movies you consider the worst, and list some reasons why.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 15:17 |
|
Yakmouth posted:You brought emotion into the conversation, not me. I was talking about the emotions and sentiments the scene represented, and you started talking about emotional reactions as an appeal to popularity. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Aug 29, 2017 |
# ? May 19, 2017 19:09 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Uh, okay? My favourite movies, in no particular order: hahahahahaha HaahahhahaHahaha hahahaha hahahahaha haa ok
|
# ? May 19, 2017 19:15 |
|
Wow, try watching some good movies, lmao
|
# ? May 19, 2017 19:17 |
|
Doesn't Lamps have like actual not joke, not internet autism? He's kinda gonna have nonstandard emotional responses to things.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 19:41 |
|
This is the most anime movie I've ever seen that isn't actually an anime. It falls into every common sequel pitfall and they still haven't figured out what to do with Gamora. Also the flippant attitude about mass murder was kind of weird, but the original had that as well. The tumor thing was stupid and unnecessary. Yondu was still a delight, and most of the humor hit the mark. Not as good as the original by a long shot, but still an enjoyable romp. The kids in the audience LOVED it and reacted loudly to every joke, every badass moment, and even the sad scenes. Renoistic fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 19, 2017 |
# ? May 19, 2017 19:45 |
|
poisonpill posted:hahahahahaha HaahahhahaHahaha hahahaha hahahahaha haa ok That's trying too hard. Did you even notice two of those aren't movies? Owlofcreamcheese posted:Doesn't Lamps have like actual not joke, not internet autism? He's kinda gonna have nonstandard emotional responses to things. I think it's a bit weird to accuse people of autism for not liking a comic book blockbuster.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 19:46 |
|
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. As an appeal to popularity? Not at all. You seem to have it completely backwards, imagining that people are only laughing and gasping and crying because the movie is popular when in actuality their reactions are the source of the film's popularity. Please explain the difference between the emotions a scene 'represents' and the emotional reaction the scene invokes. Other than cause and effect, I mean. You can't call a scene 'scary' if it doesn't make people scared. You can't call a scene 'funny' if it doesn't make people laugh. If people react to a particular moment in an intended manner it seems obvious that the moment 'worked'. Analysis is about deciphering why it worked (or didn't work as the case may be). It isn't about trying to convince people that their reactions are somehow 'wrong'.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 19:48 |
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I think it's a bit weird to accuse people of autism for not liking a comic book blockbuster. I would have sworn that after on of your really weird derails in some move thread you admitted you had autism and it made it hard for you to understand certain types of character motivations? I may be thinking of someone else I guess?
|
# ? May 19, 2017 19:52 |
|
Maybe it's because I look at films through a more filmmakery lens, but to me, getting someone to feel something from the piece of art you created is extremely great and super hard to achieve. You can want people to be critical of films and poo poo and that's fine I guess. But I just don't see any real application for it outside of a classroom. Human beings are emotional creatures. We use emotions to communicate, and to articulate ideas and opinions. To remove that element from art, and especially this artform, is pretty disingenuous. I don't give a poo poo about looking critically and objectively at films because I really really don't have too. I'm not being graded on it, I'm not being probated for not doing it. If that is how you personally view art, more power to you. You do you. But don't expect everyone to understand your very off putting and alienating view point, you know? We get it, ya don't dig the film because it's not as visually great as other films, and you don't like the concept of immaturity. Fair enough. But as you can see, it's not an issue for everyone else. So uh, maybe try watching films to feel something...and feel those things, and feel emotions and your life would be better over all instead of trying to critically analyze films all the time.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 20:07 |
|
It's not hard when you are just using tropes done and seen before and are known to work.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 20:14 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 00:45 |
|
I mean, no one has to judge films and be a filmmaker themselves, but uh...give it a try. It's super drat hard.
|
# ? May 19, 2017 20:25 |