|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Luc Besson, Luc Besson. I'm guessing you're looking forward to Valerian
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Luc Besson, Luc Besson. Besson has engaged in common cinematic tropes. Unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Everyone from Spielberg to Fincher to Kurosawa has dealt with tropes. The issue with the "we're not so different, you and I" bit is that it's a stock line, not a trope. It worked in Spider-Man as camp, but it was bizarre seeing it played straight here. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 22:36 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
What a silly question, Yaws. I have said I saw the first one five times in theaters. Obviously I enjoy Gunn's work and thought he was going to kill this one as well. You would rather I create alternate realities than complain about the one I got, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
I don't know what the gently caress is going on in your heads to think someone saying that movie dialogue being overused is a DEBUNKABLE, INCORRECT STATEMENT just because you didn't have a problem with it, but cut that poo poo out. I don't care if you liked the movie or not, someone saying "wow I can't believe they actually used the line 'we're not so different you and I'" is not a queue to go into a multi-page derail about how wrong they are. Grow a thicker skin and accept that people can be critical of something you like.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
By the way, I'm not like, happy I didnt like this movie. I bought toys of the first one and I'm in my thirties. I bought loving toys and legos and a shirt, ok? I loving wanted to like this movie.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
I'm obviously differing from Sir Kodiak and GoldfishStew in that I think the film worked on a scene-by-scene basis, but I do agree that the movie as a whole is flawed. I just think the flaws might be more structural. Like, I don't know for certain that James Gunn was trying to do Volume 1 only more so. I mean maybe, but when I watched it I felt like it was trying pretty hard to be different. I think the issue is that Gunn tried to be too ambitious in his story telling -- something I think a lot of the MCU movies are guilty of. The pirate mutiny could have been a film all of its own, likewise the Ego/Nebula stuff. But Gunn wanted his film to be both an action-space adventure and an exploration of family and belonging. Trying to weave the two together did a disservice to both. It split up the team unnecessarily, and kept the film from fully fleshing out either premise. On top of that the movie is a comedy. I know some people are tired of the marvel quip-factory style of screenwriting, and if this were about Doctor Strange I'd agree that the humour injections were unnecessary, but I think everyone would agree that if GotGv2 was supposed to be anything at all, it was supposed to be a comedy. So James Gunn is trying to do a lot in this film, and this is the highest-profile biggest-budget project he's ever worked on. Maybe his reach exceeded his grasp to some degree. It happened to Joss Whedon with AoU and there's a good chance the Russo Brothers bit off more then they can chew with Infinity War. Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah. For myself, I went into the movie to enjoy the experience, and found it didn't work at all emotionally and wasn't particularly funny, so I'm left with a movie that didn't even look particularly good. But if you did find it moving and funny I can't expect you to care all that much about the latter.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:Do you think the film would have worked better for you if Gunn had focused on a single tone or a single storyline? Maybe, it's hard to say. I'm not sure I would have connected with the more sincere moments even if the movie had been more consistent, but it's certainly harder to get into it when the movie is all over the place. Some of it may just be that I'm exactly who the father story isn't for. I don't have kids and none of it particularly resonated with my own relationship with my father. And it feels like a movie that depends on you to bring some of that with you, because it relies on the broadcast sketches of a relationship to focus on the absurdly heightened circumstances of it. Whereas, I'm an easy mark for, like, pets in danger.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
The Starlord/Gamora story and the Gamora/Nebula story just weren't expanded upon/different enough from the first to make me feel they were necessary to the film in a film that already had a lot going on, story wise. I will again say I also don't like that Gamora was designated to a girls weekend side story while the boys went off to play. Maybe I am acutely sensitive to this because it bothered me so much in the merchandise of the last movie. There were literally shirts that said Guardians of the Galaxy and just had images of Groot, Rocket, Drax and Starlord, with no Gamora to be found on it. GoldfishStew fucked around with this message at 23:41 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm exactly who the father story isn't for. I don't have kids and none of it particularly resonated with my own relationship with my father. I'm a father and the story didn't particularly resonate with me.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
GoldfishStew posted:The Starlord/Gamora story and the Gamora/Nebula story just weren't expanded upon/different enough from the first to make me feel they were necessary to the film in a film that already had a lot going on, story wise. I can't remember who wrote it, but there was a least one review suggesting that the first Guardians of the Galaxy would have been improved if Gamora had been the focus character. There's no obvious reason that Quill needs to be the focus of each film and I hope (although it probably won't be the case) that Volume 3 gives someone else the 'A' plot. I don't really agree with you about Gamora/Nebula -- I liked what they did with that relationship. What you see as a retread I saw as a continuation. Maybe it's because Zoe Saldana and Karen Gillan are both strong enough actors to do a lot with very little material. I basically do agree with you about Starlord/Gamora. If Gunn was going for a Danson-Long chemistry he missed the mark. Sir Kodiak posted:Whereas, I'm an easy mark for, like, pets in danger.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
i literally have an absentee father and that aspect of the story only kinda sorta resonated with me 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Speaking as a father, let me offer some observations: if you love your son you won't give his mother (who he loves) cancer. You also won't attempt to use your son as a battery in order to consume every other being in the universe. What I'm saying is that the father-son thing was totally undermined by that ridiculous heel turn.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:I can't remember who wrote it, but there was a least one review suggesting that the first Guardians of the Galaxy would have been improved if Gamora had been the focus character. There's no obvious reason that Quill needs to be the focus of each film and I hope (although it probably won't be the case) that Volume 3 gives someone else the 'A' plot. Quill was the emotional lynchpin of the first movie. Gunn wanted to tell a story about dealing with the pain of loss. That wouldn't have fit Gamora as well, since she never knew her real family, and is dealing with the trauma of an abusive family, not the loss of a loved one. I do think they could have done a better job of tying Gamora and Nebula to the main plot of the second film, a movie about father issues.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Speaking as a father, let me offer some observations: if you love your son you won't give his mother (who he loves) cancer. But he literally didn't love Peter. Or Peter's mother, obviously. That's literally the defining point of his character. There wasn't a "father-son thing" that "was totally undermined by that ridiculous heel turn" - rather, the illusion of a father-son thing was stripped away. You'd have better luck pointing out that a loving father wouldn't threaten his son with murder to get him to do manual labor to assist in various criminal activities. Phylodox posted:Quill was the emotional lynchpin of the first movie. Gunn wanted to tell a story about dealing with the pain of loss. That wouldn't have fit Gamora as well, since she never knew her real family, and is dealing with the trauma of an abusive family, not the loss of a loved one. I do think they could have done a better job of tying Gamora and Nebula to the main plot of the second film, a movie about father issues. Gamora had already basically disowned her father; she'd pretty much reached the end of that particular arc and wasn't really in a place to be having issues with it. What she's dealing with is the [b]aftermath[/i] of her father issues, like her sister.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:What I'm saying is that the father-son thing was totally undermined by that ridiculous heel turn. I was thinking more of Yondu in regards to that comment. The stuff with Ego being trite – like them playing catch – was a little funny given how obvious the eventual turn was. Yakmouth posted:How did you react to the Ravagers torturing Groot? Did it work, or were you pretty much checked out of the film by that point? That was reasonably funny. But as scenes of people toying with an elder god go, it's no Prometheus.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:But he literally didn't love Peter. Or Peter's mother, obviously. That's literally the defining point of his character. There wasn't a "father-son thing" that "was totally undermined by that ridiculous heel turn" - rather, the illusion of a father-son thing was stripped away. You'd have better luck pointing out that a loving father wouldn't threaten his son with murder to get him to do manual labor to assist in various criminal activities. Their relationship isn't real. It's a movie relationship. It's the movie's choice to make Ego a completely remorseless cosmic psychopath with that heel turn. He doesn't have to yell "you're a battery now" or "I gave your mother cancer" - those are, in fact, choices the screenwriter made that retroactively turn all of the father-son bonding into worthless grift. In the end, there's nothing to connect with. Ego is revealed as a virus to be eradicated. His sociopathic relationship comments on nothing. It illuminates nothing. It's got no emotional truth. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but I found it a huge waste of time. Edit: Sir Kodiak posted:I was thinking more of Yondu in regards to that comment. The stuff with Ego being trite – like them playing catch – was a little funny given how obvious the eventual turn was. I expected Ego to have mixed motives. I did not expect him to literally be The Blob, But Now He's Intergalactic And Pretends He Is Your Dad. He's about as interesting as The Blob, too. The Yondu stuff is just really, really pat. "I really do love you, kid!" *freezes and dies* Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 00:35 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:How did you react to the Ravagers torturing Groot? Did it work, or were you pretty much checked out of the film by that point? Sir Kodiak posted:That was reasonably funny. Wow.  You and I are on really different pages regarding this film. Like, that scene of them trapping Groot in a circle and pouring whiskey on him creeped me the gently caress out. I was bringing it up as a response to your 'pets in danger' comment but I guess your take on Groot's role in the film was different from mine. I was reading him less 'elder god' and more 'eager puppy'
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Their relationship isn't real. It's a movie relationship. It's the movie's choice to make Ego a completely remorseless cosmic psychopath with that heel turn. He doesn't have to yell "you're a battery now" or "I gave your mother cancer" - those are, in fact, choices the screenwriter made that retroactively turn all of the father-son bonding into worthless grift. Ego doesn't love Peter. Ego loves the part of himself that's inside Peter. He loves the reflection of himself he sees in Peter. This causes him to think that Peter is like him in that he believes the same things, that all other life in the universe needs to go and be replaced by himself. He doesn't see this as evil, just as he didn't see killing his other offspring as evil, or putting the tumor in Meredith as evil. His offspring didn't have the part of Ego in them that he wanted, so they were disappointments. Meredith was a temptation to Ego that he saw could threaten himself and his goals, so he removed that temptation. Remember, he thinks that Peter agrees with him on everything, and he does up to a point. Ego never even considers that Peter will see things differently, because Ego can only look at the universe through his own eyes.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:Wow. It makes it clear that these are lovely people, but dude grew back from a twig, he's going to be fine.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Please stop explaining to me how the movie defines Ego. There is no comprehension problem. Ego doesn't care about anyone else. He thought Peter's Ego side would overwhelm his human side. This is all laid out during his heel turn. And I'm telling you it's stupid for a movie about relationships to have the main plot to be a fake relationship - a dumb grift from a planet-sized virus that immediately evaporates when he blurts out "I killed your mother!" I get that they wanted a "holy poo poo!" moment - and it works - but it burns that entire subplot to do it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
really ego should've seen meredith's (naturally occurring) cancer coming with his matter magic and be so unable to deal with his emotions in response to that that he just bails on her and their planned son forever rather than feel for another person and jeopardize his mission yadda yadda the rest stays the same he'd still be a lovely dad more concerned about himself than anyone else but he wouldn't be pushed into 'might as well be an elder god for how relatable his point of view is' territory
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:really ego should've seen meredith's (naturally occurring) cancer coming with his matter magic and be so unable to deal with his emotions in response to that that he just bails on her and their planned son forever rather than feel for another person and jeopardize his mission yadda yadda the rest stays the same You could add to this a little bit and have Ego say that he has no dominion outside of his own planet and couldn't save Meredith so that's why he wants to make every planet his planet. Let's become script doctors together, Brother Entropy.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You could add to this a little bit and have Ego say that he has no dominion outside of his own planet and couldn't save Meredith so that's why he wants to make every planet his planet. poo poo that'd make the 'connecting with other people involves giving up a modicum of power and showing vulnerability' truism hyperliteral for ego, either he's a god on a planet(s) all on his lonesome or he's a regular dude that can bond with someone besides himself
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:he'd still be a lovely dad more concerned about himself than anyone else but he wouldn't be pushed into 'might as well be an elder god for how relatable his point of view is' territory Its almost like he is an elder god who doesn't actually give a poo poo about anything except his own egotistical goals.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
I don't think Ego's love for Meredith or Peter was feigned at all. He genuinely loved both of them. That was the problem. That's why he had to kill a Meredith. One of the main ideas through the movie is that you can't be a god and a man. Ego realized that, if he continued to stay on Earth and love Meredith, he would become too human to carry out his "make everything me" plan. So he killed her to remove even the temptation. He chooses to be a god. Peter chooses to be a man.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
He did love the mom tho. It wasn't 100% evil
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I don't think Ego's love for Meredith or Peter was feigned at all. He genuinely loved both of them. That was the problem. That's why he had to kill a Meredith. One of the main ideas through the movie is that you can't be a god and a man. Ego realized that, if he continued to stay on Earth and love Meredith, he would become too human to carry out his "make everything me" plan. So he killed her to remove even the temptation. He chooses to be a god. Peter chooses to be a man. Exactly . It was pretty well done. The heel turn was well supported.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I don't think Ego's love for Meredith or Peter was feigned at all. He genuinely loved both of them. That was the problem. That's why he had to kill a Meredith. One of the main ideas through the movie is that you can't be a god and a man. Ego realized that, if he continued to stay on Earth and love Meredith, he would become too human to carry out his "make everything me" plan. So he killed her to remove even the temptation. He chooses to be a god. Peter chooses to be a man. on its own this is fine but ego plays double duty as 'selfish god' and 'selfish absentee dad' and the two just didn't gel well together for me ego says that he loved meredith too much so she had to die but to our human point of view it's obvious bullshit that undercuts anything resembling humanity in him and lovely absentee dads are all too human
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Why is it obvious bullshit.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It makes it clear that these are lovely people, but dude grew back from a twig, he's going to be fine. It still trips me out when people are like "they were protecting Groot in the beginning, it was cute" because I'm like yo, dude's immortal. If anything, they're curbing his base natural animalistic state (which was mirrored in the giant monster that they were fighting in the beginning, as he's emulating the creature, not the people it's fighting).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:on its own this is fine but ego plays double duty as 'selfish god' and 'selfish absentee dad' and the two just didn't gel well together for me I dunno, "I hurt you because I love you too much" is dysfunctional, but not inhuman. The whole thing about Ego is that he chooses to be a god, but he's a petty, selfish, egotistical god, and so actually ends up lessening himself by his choice. He's kind of a pathetic god.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
My favorite part of the opening is Groot waving to Gamora, and she takes just enough time to smile and say "Hi!" back before attacking the monster.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why is it obvious bullshit. love involves sacrificing your wants and desires for the sake of another person or at the very least not murdering them for the sake of your wants
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
GoldfishStew posted:The Starlord/Gamora story and the Gamora/Nebula story just weren't expanded upon/different enough from the first to make me feel they were necessary to the film in a film that already had a lot going on, story wise. That bothered me in the first movie, it seemed like the film needed to segregate Gamora and Nebula or their agency would threaten the boys or something. Which I don't think even the gamergate crowd would find necessary in a film that features a mostly male cast 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Love can be (and most often is) a selfish emotion.
ruddiger fucked around with this message at 01:37 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:love involves sacrificing your wants and desires for the sake of another person You can genuinely love someone and still be a lovely, selfish, dysfunctional person. You probably can't carry on a healthy, mutually respectful relationship, is all.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Are people forgetting by the dude's own admission he banged a bunch of women on a bunch of planets, then kidnapped their kids and then murdered them when they weren't of any use to him and unceremoniously threw their corpses in a cave to rot? Does that sound like somebody who is capable of real love to you?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Are people forgetting by the dude's own admission he banged a bunch of women on a bunch of planets, then kidnapped their kids and then murdered them when they weren't of any use to him and unceremoniously threw their corpses in a cave to rot? Yes? There's nothing mutually exclusive about loving one person and being callous about others. All of the other women (entities?) Ego had sex with were a means to an end, as were their children. Meredith was special to Ego, and those feelings transferred to Peter.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Phylodox posted:I dunno, "I hurt you because I love you too much" is dysfunctional, but not inhuman. The whole thing about Ego is that he chooses to be a god, but he's a petty, selfish, egotistical god, and so actually ends up lessening himself by his choice. He's kind of a pathetic god. A puny god, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
