|
Snowman_McK posted:John Woo action movies are, with, like three exceptions, bad (Hard Boiled, the Killer and the one with JCVD) Weird, I don't remember JCVD being in Face/Off
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Weird, I don't remember JCVD being in Face/Off Face/Off is bad. It's the good kind of bad where violent gunfights are interspersed with Nicholas Cage rubbing himself on things like a cat. Hard Target has Arnold Vosloo's immortal pronunciations of the word 'feelings' and I will hear no criticism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
This John Woo slapfight is boring so lets have a movie fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
*nodding, sagely*
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
Jutsuka posted:This John Woo slapfight is boring so lets have a movie fight. What the hell are these things
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Someone combine those together. e: looks a bit like the suicide squad final boss too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:What the hell are these things Matching shots from Beavis and WW - edit: wait, or is that SS? Must be cause Ares isn't a giant with pincer hands
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Lower image is from the Thor 3 trailer. Edit: I think. lol Edit 2: yep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r28cuq3ICw Was that Beavis shot really fish-eye like that in the movie? If so I totally missed that and I've seen it twice. Shrimp or Shrimps fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Sep 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
People talking nonsense about MI2 being bad. I'm positive that's the movie that convinced Tom to go all out as an action star. The motorcycle stunts and the bad rear end knife fight kept a boring series from being too self serious. MI3 had PSHoffman chewing on the celluloid, but it wasn't as good when they didn't have the teeth to kill Monaghan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Oh, jesus, well, there ya go.Shrimp or Shrimps posted:Was that Beavis shot really fish-eye like that in the movie? If so I totally missed that and I've seen it twice. It's not fish-eye. The lens is wide, but the effect is being created by the camera movement and the explosions propelling debris outward from the center to the margins of the frame. Good shot. Clark zooms into frame --  Camera dollies right and angles left for profile, moving in ever so slightly --  Continue right dolly, left angle as Clark moves forward --  Doomsday beefs up his laser, causes explosion pushing Clark and the camera back --  Camera pulls back further, reverses dolly and angle for profile view of battle.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Just going by the still images, I'd say they're both pretty good. BvS looks like a Renaissance painting (but then again, what still image doesn't from that movie) and looks like a fight between an angel and a demon, both equal in strenght, none overpowering the other. Thors scene takes a different tack, in that it clearly wants to convey that Surt (or whoever that is) is stronger and more powerful, and portray the hero as the underdog. struggling against against a stronger opponent, but winning due to determination or whatever. Unfortunately, the way surt is posed there looks really dorky and not really intimidating, but I get what they're going for, which is a bit different from what BvS is doing (i think)
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
The beam-of-wars got boring when DBZ did it, not that much better even with more of an animation budget.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:It's not fish-eye. The lens is wide, but the effect is being created by the camera movement and the explosions propelling debris outward from the center to the margins of the frame. Good shot. Shrimp or Shrimps might have been referring to the vignetting in the shots
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Snyder is a great director
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:John Woo action movies are, with, like three exceptions, bad (Hard Boiled, the Killer and the one with JCVD) No A Better Tomorrow 1 and 2 or Bullet in the Head? I liked Broken Arrow and the 1991 Once a Thief also.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Just going by the still images, I'd say they're both pretty good. Yeah, Surt looks somewhat goofy on that picture but overall is one of the best shots to come from a Marvel film so far. The BvS one is just beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Yeah, Surt looks somewhat goofy on that picture but overall is one of the best shots to come from a Marvel film so far. *psst* (it's that contrast)   Like, it's not even particularly pronounced contrast, but it has a dramatic effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Jutsuka posted:This John Woo slapfight is boring so lets have a movie fight. When I first saw this I thought the demon had these goofy vertically-opening crab claws that he was shooting fire out of, rather than a big sword, and I like it way better that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
*Bob Ross voice* You know what, what the heck? Let's get crazy. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
I think you're right on the money about how Marvel's being gunshy about strong contrast is holding so much of their stuff back. There seems to be an impulse to just like, color everything in the color you "know" it is so that people always know this uniform is blue, this Hulk is green, etc, such that consistency keeps trumping beauty. I had an art teacher quote one of HIS art teachers to me once about how, paraphrased, it's a good idea to always put at least a bit of the darkest black and the brightest white in a picture somewhere just to make use of the entire tonal range and give all the other shades foundations to be judged against, and that's missing from so many of those frames before you mess with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:*Bob Ross voice* You know what, what the heck? Let's get crazy. what if thor 3 was in colour?  
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
It would be especially helpful for pushing Waititi's better-than-average-MCU blocking and the film's idiosyncratic production design that one extra step beyond:     
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
It's maddening, because the highlights on that shot of the Hulk jumping are really nice, but mapped all flat like that it's all much of a muchness. But someone at Marvel is convinced that flat gamma is their house style.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:The beam-of-wars got boring when DBZ did it, not that much better even with more of an animation budget. I, however, am not sick of beam struggles and wish to see more of them in movies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
It's creatively motivated with thematic implications. Like, obviously we can't speak too much in terms of how the shots will function in context of the film, since they're just split-second snippets. But it's doubtful that, after years of more or less staging and shooting action scenes the same way, that any filmmaker in Marvel's wheelhouse including Waititi is going to suddenly do an about-face and do something more like Snyder, where the camera is directly implicated in the chaotic, 'superhuman' events being portrayed. There's a brief bit at the end of the Black Panther teaser with something like that, but it comes off basically another re-tread of Matrix 'bullet time.' In this case, the shot is both never particularly well-composed, nor evocative in terms of lighting. It's just a CGI dude flipping around in a black cat suit. They can't even find the motivation for dramatic contrasts or more frightening action in a movie called Black Panther.       Contrast this with how the camera in Snyder's film often struggles to keep up with the characters:            In Snyder's films, a cut does not occur merely to create the illusion of continuous movement or the suggest a contact blow when there isn't any. A camera does not whip-pan merely to follow a thoroughly lit subject that is always in frame. Rather, the camera movement and montage communicates the incontrovertible effects that his superhuman characters leave on the world around them. All of the components of the mise en- cene, from the available light to the weather to the set design is organized around the central principle that these characters are and should appear beyond normal comprehension, that the spectator should actually be kept 'in the dark' except for a few crucial components of the scene which are always meticulously framed. With Thor 3 and Black Panther, even in scenes that take place at night or in burning hellscapes are portrayed with the opposite dramatic motivation: that no matter how cataclysmic circumstances become, the mise en scene functions in unity as an assurance that neither the characters nor the spectators by proxy will be consumed by alien or horrific forces. With that in mind, we can re-compare those shots of Hulk fighting the Devil: The first shot is a scene of Hulk plunging into an awesome fight with a giant devil monster. To be absolutely clear: There is nothing wrong with the shot intrinsically, and it's even both well-lit and well-composed. But even the succeeding experiments in contrast and saturation make a point. The first shot is an objective portrayal of Hulk the beloved Avengers team member about to put the smackdown on a boss villain. The second and third shots are of a protuberant mass of flesh consumed in darkness and fire plummeting into Hell. They're fraught and ambiguous, whereas the first one, while pretty good, is actually the calculated result of what Marvel has been working towards ever since The Avengers, which is actually to sanitize those qualities from Hulk so that he can be a less ambiguously heroic figure. The latter two shots would make great centerpieces of a movie that's, like, a direct sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk, with the character still mired in his iconographic wrath and plunging headlong into even more profound horrors. The first shot is more appropriate for a serial in which the whole point is that old Hulk is too scary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:No A Better Tomorrow 1 and 2 or Bullet in the Head? I liked Broken Arrow and the 1991 Once a Thief also. I always forget about Bullet in the Head for whatever reason. Yeah, that's pretty good, hilariously melodramatic third act aside. Both the Better Tomorrows have fuckin' dope gunfights but are terrible movies. The second one, fittingly, is a much worse movie with much better gunfights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
This is a great image. It stands out and does convey what you're saying. It immediately has more of some kind of instinctive impact when I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Hulk fighting the Devil: My one nitpick. That isn't the devil. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtur_(Marvel_Comics) Based from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtr
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:My one nitpick. That isn't the devil. Fair enough nitpick that actually helps to illustrate a nominal part of my post:  Obviously, this isn't even close to Surtur's first appearance in the comics, nor Thor's. But let's not beat around the bush here: the Surtur of modern Marvel canon does not look in any way, shape, or form like 19th century depictions of Surtr. The Norse either did not keep illustrated depictions of Surtr, or none survive. What appears in Marvel comics is a unique production of twentieth-century American pop iconography with an obvious Judeo-Christian inclination. I'm actually glad you brought it up, because it ties back into exactly what I said about the sanitization of Hulk as a figure - who is simultaneously descending into this Hellish conflict, but realized in a manner that subtly assures that audience that there is no actual potential for temptation or transgression. Neither Thor nor Hulk are assigned signifiers of their 'pagan' origins, and, indeed, all of these anti-Christian motifs are amplified and projected upon Surtur, who is realized unambiguously as just a big, red devil. Many, myself included, have done due diligence in praising Waititi for what has been so far revealed to be his unique ability to capture a 'Kirby aesthetic,' casting Ragnarok as a kitschy space opera with oblong, anti-rationalist sets and bubblegum pop-color schemes. The advertisements themselves, particularly the title cards and music, have further layered with '80s retro. But it's impossible to not note the irony of taking a phrase as loaded as "Ragnarok," which is both an apocalypse and creation myth, and using it as the basis for an aloof buddy movie in which some quippy meatheads obviously won't be dying at the hands of the goddess of death so that something better can grow. Again, the predominating theme is a sanitization of pagan transgression, of propping up appropriated figures of Norse mythology as abstract boss villains in a conventional power fantasy. You know, like Hercules. edit: Movie-fight - quote:I won, easily. quote:I'm an action figure! *squeaky toy noise* K. Waste fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Fair enough nitpick that actually helps to illustrate a nominal part of my post: This is a very good point, and it kinda echoes what DC was doing with Wonder Woman, in that they wholesale copypasted judeochristian imagery and myth and inserted it in the greek mythology framework. Zeus is a benevolent god, and Ares is a fallen angel turned demon. I would actually be very interested in a movie fight with scenes from WW
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Marvel takes Christian imagery and neuters it, while DC puts Christian imagery into everything? Kinda weird. Speaking of Kirby style weirdness, with Darkseid, DC will be up to at least three villains overflowing with Satanic imagery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Marvel takes Christian imagery and neuters it, while DC puts Christian imagery into everything? Kinda weird. I'm not quite sure what the meaning of putting the christian imagery is in WW to be honest, aside from making the greek myth more relatable to american audiences (much like Disney's hercules, which makes Hera and Zeus out to be a loving couple, and hades Satan, while the actual greek myth is more...nuanced, let's say). Maybe they were trying to make a point about the temptation of Satan, tempting both mankind to sin, while also testing the messianic character, but it feels like this is partially well worn ground in the superhero genre, but also that they missed the opportunity to explore greek myth via the lens of superheroes. I mean, MoS already did the whole "Jesus tempted by the devil" bit, and then BvS took it a step further with the alienation of Jesus that we see in todays society (Alt right american white Jesus vs brown socialist jesus) and how a god like figure would be controversial if he where to appear today. Wonder womans jesus comparisons then appear much more tame in comparison, and I feel like more could be gained by injecting some greek weirdness into her story. If that makes sense
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
It does make sense however that DC is overflowing with satanic imagery, considering two of their greatest heroes are messianic saviour figures, so naturally it makes sense to pit them against the greatest of evils, and in western culture that's the devil. Batman, in contrast, is less a messianic figure and is often facing trickster characters, rather than otherwordly demons (bvs is obviously an outlier in this)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
It's a shame that the MCU colouring is still so lousy. Ragnarok looks like it's been shot really well, and the design is very interesting. I wish they'd just bump the saturation up a few notches and really let the contrast do it's magic. It just feels like there's no full-black colour anywhere on-screen, kinda like watching on a cheap-ish screen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
hump day bitches! posted:Everybody in Spartacus nailed it , but Jai Courtney somehow got away with a career.He just keeps doing flaming garbage so it will catch up to him. I know this is late, but since Spartacus' showrunner is directing Pacific Rim 2, he managed to stick Gannicus in that, at least. Who really should have, but doesn't get, more work - is Liam Mcintyre. He really did well in it in actual *acting* and only seems to pop up every blue moon in random stuff waaaay in the background. Given all the Spartacus actors' athletic chops, I'm really suprised they haven't shown up in more comic movies. I mean, you have the obvious "this is madness" from 300 that probably got Mensah cast in Spartacus, and everyone showed up in the Arrowverse once, but movies basically draw a blank outside of...Courtney...again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Regarding the Christian imagery in Wonder Woman, some sects, ie. Jehovah's Witnesses (who think that Satan was cast to earth in 1914) think that the Devil controls the world and is behind wars like World War 1, making the Ares ---> Satan connection even more close in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
When they bring Chris Pine back for the next WW or JL movie he should replace Ben's Batman and the scene should just be a recreation of the Smokin Ace's scene where Pine uses Ben's dead body to forgive himself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Steve Trevor blew up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
all-Rush mixtape posted:Steve Trevor blew up. Like that has ever stopped a comic book character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
He already confirmed he has at least another film on his contract, didn't he?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:10
|
|