|
Sean Connery is good at Sean Connery roles Neither of those are Sean Connery roles
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I watched it recently now that I'm totally removed from the comic or any expectations to se if I was overly harsh on it. It still sucks and is a mess of flashy design thrown together, but it wasn't near as unwatchable as I remembered it being. Just sort of a bad dumb action flick. Yeah, I hadn't read any of the comics before seeing the film, but was still disappointed. Pretty sure only the first volume and a half were out when the movie was made anyhow. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Dorian Gray was a great idea. I honestly thought they could've done a whole movie about Nemo. His inclusion and portrayal was fine, it's just his death that annoys me. Completely misses the point of the character and robs us of a cool special effect. Nemo's always been one of the best characters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Sean Connery is good at Sean Connery roles Agreed. Tom Cruise is usually very good too and I don't get the hate. His poo poo to shinola ratio is rather high and I'd say there's more good Cruise movies than poor ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Agreed. It's mostly the effect of his last movie being such a piece of poo poo Once a good Cruise movie comes out it'll fade
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:My forthcoming ideal edit of Beavis will not include the plot twist that the North African refugee is being coerced by Luthor, so you'll have all of that juicy 'Superman is literally being called out as a racist' without the nearsighted compromise of the ultimate edition. What would be considered racist? He's explicitly there for Lois and doesn't kill anyone. Contrast this with Batman, who is known as a predator to Black people. Add on his trip to India from Man of Steel, and at most he's just a powered up dude in love figuring out his boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Well there's also all the crazy and Scientology poo poo that affects people's opinions. The idea that Cruise is kind of a control freak probably comes quite a bit from the all the accusations of stories around him and Scientology. I tend to feel 50/50 with him as an actor. He can do good but like, its always a "Tom Cruise Movie" and he can't seem to become part of something bigger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Well there's also all the crazy and Scientology poo poo that affects people's opinions. The idea that Cruise is kind of a control freak probably comes quite a bit from the all the accusations of stories around him and Scientology. He also has had several first hand reports of being a great guy to work with, very kind and considerate, and good to cast and crew. His personal beliefs are one thing but until he does something actually worth giving him poo poo over, I say let him be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Burkion posted:He also has had several first hand reports of being a great guy to work with, very kind and considerate, and good to cast and crew. I'm not really voicing a personal opinion about Cruise. I'm just saying that all the horror stories around the religion and the really bizarre stuff directly tying him in obviously has an influence on people's idea of him. As do some of his public appearances like the jumping or that crazy Scientology interview. I mean, I have an opinion of Cruse but its neither important nor terribly informed. Its just my random take based on all the stuff out there. The point is, I think its pretty clear why people think Cruise might be a control freak or ego maniac. Right or wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Tom Cruise exerted excessive creative control over The Mummy and given the result of that I can't cut him any slack. http://variety.com/2017/film/news/the-mummy-meltdown-tom-cruise-1202465742/
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
I remember reading about the "plane stunt" in Mummy taking like a year of planning or something. I figured at least that would be good. Instead it was a really lovely version of the hallway fight in Inception.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
The Mummy's real crime is that it wasn't a shot-for-shot remake of the 1999 movie, one of the all-time great movies. Though good luck finding someone with '99 Brendan Frasier's charisma.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Serf posted:The Mummy's real crime is that it wasn't a shot-for-shot remake of the 1999 movie, one of the all-time great movies. Though good luck finding someone with '99 Brendan Frasier's charisma. Pretty much every white guy they've tried to make a megastar since Colin Farrell is a fake Brendan Fraser and the closest they've come is a smarmy dickhead like Chris Pratt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Need more Kurt Russell clones
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:What would be considered racist? He's explicitly there for Lois and doesn't kill anyone. Contrast this with Batman, who is known as a predator to Black people. Add on his trip to India from Man of Steel, and at most he's just a powered up dude in love figuring out his boundaries. The character - at least in the theatrical cut - considers him a heartless racist because he saves his own lily white American girlfriend, but leaves her village to the fate of an ethnic cleansing. Remember, racism is ideology, not superficial prejudice or the absence of compassion. The issue isn't Clark's fallibility, it's the consistency of his own personal values with complacency towards the very systems that implicitly accepts that non-white, indigenous, and poor peoples are expendable, that the oppression and exploitation of the East and global South are natural outcomes of the greater good. I'm not editing out those scenes from the ultimate cut because they make Clark 'not racist.' I'm editing them out because they compromise the accusation in the first place. I personally feel like a version of the film that is the most compelling is not the one where we are given the most redundant reminders that Lex Luthor is behind it all,* but the one where the obverse relationship between Clark as the liberal-humanist and Bruce as the reactionary conservative is emphasized. Don't get me wrong, I'm still keeping all of that stuff in which Clark himself literally says, 'Batman is targeting the poor and non-white neighborhoods, and the police are backing him up.' I just feel like having the refugee woman's condemnation not be coerced, but be the product of a sincere and righteous anger against a figure who she sees - as Clark sees Batman - a product of oppressive ideology. In the absence of the twist about the refugee lady being coerced, I also feel it allows the scenes of Clark's investigation of Batman to sustain more nuance, because you already have a scene in which another black woman interjects that she sees Batman as a redeemer, protecting the community. * I'm also editing out the scene where KGBeast pays one of the prisoners to kill the guy with the Bat brand, but keeping the shanking scene itself. Once those polaroids reach Clark's desk, that's all the information we need. It's more suspenseful when we aren't following the same henchman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Nerds are wrong as ever. Already have bad vibes from the trailer promising a putatively futuristic society concerned with a medieval succession crisis. Did you notice how you just waved away how black people might view BP while at the same time being concerned about it might portray black people? What's going on there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:I’m trying to think of examples where a studio dumped whole hog into a tent pole franchise-maker movie recently and it ended up losing money. “Less successful than hoped for “ is common and describes BvS as well, but a legit flop? WENTZ WAGON NUI posted:F4ntastic (2015) Timby posted:Didn't Lionsgate intend for the new Power Rangers movie to kick off a whole franchise, only for it to flop horribly? got any sevens posted:King Arthur was another underrated flop this year, and they were hoping to do like six more movies for it If we're making a list of "Films with a $100m+ budget that were obviously meant to kickstart an ongoing series but hosed up" I'd also throw Ghostbusters, Warcraft, Ghost In The Shell, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets and The Legend of Tarzan. The Dark Tower would also make the list except it only had a $60m production budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:It's a totally fine idea but a really weird counter to your point. Like I think it's totally possible that's where the movie will go but it's bugfuck to then say this is a positive portrayal of Africa in contrast to racist old Beavis. It's a deeply cynical rejection of Afro-futurism The movie isn't out yet so I can't say if its a good or bad portrayal, but Black Panther is a strong, smart, and caring leader that also happens to be black. The background from BP, even though it was originally written by white writers, reflects an idealization of a certain vein of African American radical theory that is reflected from early Malcom X writings, to the BLA, to the BRC/Communist Party (traditionally staffed by many leading Black intellectuals). The idea of a seperate and advanced civilization, unfucked with by Western Imperialism, is a pretty entrancing idea for people that have to deal with a lot of poo poo in this country. Hell, its the reason why Ethiopia is so held in high esteem by alot of Africans and African Americans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Did you notice how you just waved away how black people might view BP while at the same time being concerned about it might portray black people? What's going on there? that post you quoted has nothing to do with race though, it has to do with the weirdness that is marvel trying to spin feudal monarchy into something revolutionary and futuristic
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:The idea of a seperate and advanced civilization, unfucked with by Western Imperialism, is a pretty entrancing idea for people that have to deal with a lot of poo poo in this country. Hell, its the reason why Ethiopia is so held in high esteem by alot of Africans and African Americans. the problem is that unless this movie's got some big twist towards the end all it's really doing is replacing western imperialism with wakandan imperalism; t'challa's big goal as the new king from what we've seen is to become another tony stark and that feels really at odds with the afro-futurism that they're so heavily leaning on
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:that post you quoted has nothing to do with race though, it has to do with the weirdness that is marvel trying to spin feudal monarchy into something revolutionary and futuristic Read the earlier posts. Hundu was waving away why I, as a black person, connect to BP. Brother Entropy posted:the problem is that unless this movie's got some big twist towards the end all it's really doing is replacing western imperialism with wakandan imperalism; t'challa's big goal as the new king from what we've seen is to become another tony stark and that feels really at odds with the afro-futurism that they're so heavily leaning on That's a little early to say what's going on in this movie at all. I liked the vibrancy, the technologically futuristic city, the all black cast shown in the teaser. So I'm optimistic/excited.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:That's a little early to say what's going on in this movie at all. that's literally the plot of the movie, t'challa as the new king wants to move wakanda away from isolationism and spread wakandan tech to the outside world and because this is marvel we know he's going to succeed and it will be seen as a good thing that there's a new tony stark with even more lack of accountability because he's not just a technocrat who likes to flaunt authority, he's both technocrat and authority himself
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
basically what i'm getting at is that kings can go gently caress themselves
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:The character - at least in the theatrical cut - considers him a heartless racist because he saves his own lily white American girlfriend, but leaves her village to the fate of an ethnic cleansing. Remember, racism is ideology, not superficial prejudice or the absence of compassion. The issue isn't Clark's fallibility, it's the consistency of his own personal values with complacency towards the very systems that implicitly accepts that non-white, indigenous, and poor peoples are expendable, that the oppression and exploitation of the East and global South are natural outcomes of the greater good. I get what you're trying to say, but the witness is testifying that Clark upset order. Specifically, he came into a situation that was already hosed in one way by profiteering white men to assert his own agenda, Lois. "He answers to no one, not even, I think, to God." Lex extrapolates on the use of "God" later, a social construct that's defined by the people, which was him before Clark flew in. Totally down for your eventual super cut, as I'm of a similar mind that only certain scenes from the UC should be in, like all the football references.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
The theatrical cut of DOJ says that the liberal(!) congress is racist because they see this woman as an avatar of victimhood instead of as a person. As a result, they miss that she is blatantly wrong: what we saw was a proxy war between Lexcorp and the CIA. Her insistence that ‘Superman should answer to someone’ misses that that was precisely the problem: that Superman was in fact holding back, trying to minimize his impact, and consequently failed to fight the actual villains. The Extended Edition changes things by making Lex deliberately take advantage of that same liberal racism, and I think it’s best not to lose the scenes depicting the woman as a person instead a soundbite - riding the bus, trying to make a living.... Lex’s conspiracy is rather brazen in its sloppiness - should have been easily exposed if people were paying attention. “I'm afraid I didn't see it because I wasn't looking..." The part to remove is not the woman’s complicity, but the part where the entire African conflict was staged to annoy Superman. Better to have Lex use paid shills to spin his failed takeover of the nation to his advantage. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Did you notice how you just waved away how black people might view BP while at the same time being concerned about it might portray black people? What's going on there? Shageletic posted:The movie isn't out yet so I can't say if its a good or bad portrayal, but Black Panther is a strong, smart, and caring leader that also happens to be black. The background from BP, even though it was originally written by white writers, reflects an idealization of a certain vein of African American radical theory that is reflected from early Malcom X writings, to the BLA, to the BRC/Communist Party (traditionally staffed by many leading Black intellectuals). I'm black. I don't really care how "black people" might view BP because "black people" have lots of different opinions. For example, I am definitely highly skeptical of Disney "Afrofuturism".
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thelindsayellis/status/934539052099014656
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Read the earlier posts. Hundu was waving away why I, as a black person, connect to BP. What people are waving away is this bizarrely apolitical talk of “vibrancy, caring and... strength!” Regardless of your optimism/excitement and connection, there is nothing particularly antiracist in the presentation of a given culture as ‘vibrant’ and so-on. That’s bog-standard multiculturalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'm sure this is going to launch into a discussion of either capitalism or feudalism, but I feel like pointing out that a family leading a country and having a succession crisis is literally something that recently happened (behind-the-scenes, admittedly) in Cuba. Ta-Nahisi Coates is a darling of neo-liberals. He might speak of systemic oppression and capital, but he does not speak to it in a material way. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/ta-nehisi-coates-case-for-reparations-bernie-sanders-racism/ Shageletic posted:Seriously, I don't know what you mean by positive stereotypes in BP. It's liberal identity politics. Appeals for positive "role models" necessitates an exclusion/resentment of others in the context of current capitalist society; black people who are closer to the negative stereotypes (the lower class) are to be shamed as lesser beings. To treat media depicting successful black people as a victory betrays genuine impotence in political discourse. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Ta-Nahisi Coates is a darling of neo-liberals. He might speak of systemic oppression and capital, but he does not speak to it in a material way. That's a pretty dated article, specifically after he wrote an article wishing Sanders was more open to the concept of modern reparations. He was later interviewed and specified that he called Sanders out not because he considered him the worst offender, but because he considered him the best and only sane choice. Neoliberals quickly evaporated around him after that. Basically his only 'crime' is not believing in tactical critique. As for the rest of the post: as Shaglectic already said, BP and Wakanda are far more related to a desire for a What-If Africa, one that had been allowed to grow without being stunted by empires around them. It's less "we want to be the rich oppressors" in that context, and more "we want our fair share", which I'm sure any self-respecting leftist can relate to. The existence of a royal family is not integral to the vision in any way but cultural; Wakanda has a royal family because Africa had a glut of royal families before they were put under heel. In that sense they serve as more of a modern-day british royalty; more symbolic of the country than commanding. Of course, this does not apply to all BP plotlines and certainly not more recent ones, such as TNC's run. What I'm saying is, you're reading too much into a trailer where a young kid acts charismatic and then does stuff in a super suit. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:That's a pretty dated article, specifically after he wrote an article wishing Sanders was more open to the concept of modern reparations. He was later interviewed and specified that he called Sanders out not because he considered him the worst offender, but because he considered him the best and only sane choice. Neoliberals quickly evaporated around him after that. Actually it's his identity politics driven worldview.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Actually it's his identity politics driven worldview. I mean, if you would like to ignore the real effects of redlining in preventing black americans from receiving aid, sure. He's written plenty about a need for all poor americans to recieve what they are due, he simply also recognizes that some poor sects are worse off than others, and that without fixes to systemic problems that will continue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
They still have time to rewrite BP so it's a highly contested democratic election instead, and the isolationist guy wins in the end by smearing BP over misuse of federal technology.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I tend to feel 50/50 with him as an actor. He can do good but like, its always a "Tom Cruise Movie" and he can't seem to become part of something bigger. Magnolia, Tropic Thunder, A Few Good Men? The Outsiders? Taps? I'd hesitate to call those "Tom Cruise Movies".
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm black. I don't really care how "black people" might view BP because "black people" have lots of different opinions. For example, I am definitely highly skeptical of Disney "Afrofuturism". I am black (and have been to various parts of Africa, at least, so I do have different pieces of first-hand experience with different countries at the very least), and am mostly agreeing with Hundu here as well. There was nothing really jarring about the Africa scene in BvS to me because the whole movie is about white guy Luthor setting up a bunch of crap to screw with Superman, and the Africa scene squarely puts the focus on the PMCs with that context. On the flip side, I am very, very wary about Black Panther, as a lot of it could easily be sheen to cover a lot of underlying problematic things - it's hard for me to trust Disney to handle that kind of material with any real nuance or understanding, as they tend to pander to mainstream interests too much. Case in point, Rogue One being written as a movie that gives a more nuanced looked at terrorism, being whittled down to create a protagonist that never actually gets her hands dirty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I mean, if you would like to ignore the real effects of redlining in preventing black americans from receiving aid, sure. He's written plenty about a need for all poor americans to recieve what they are due, he simply also recognizes that some poor sects are worse off than others, and that without fixes to systemic problems that will continue. What I disagree with is not the identification of the problem but the method of solution to fix these systemic issues. Certainly universal fixes in the past have not fixed our ills, but that is hardly enough to reject them. Wealth redistribution aimed at specific racial groups are much easier to be taken apart specifically due to the ontological delineation essential to identity politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Darko posted:On the flip side, I am very, very wary about Black Panther, as a lot of it could easily be sheen to cover a lot of underlying problematic things - it's hard for me to trust Disney to handle that kind of material with any real nuance or understanding, as they tend to pander to mainstream interests too much. I have a really bad feeling about this movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Darko posted:On the flip side, I am very, very wary about Black Panther, as a lot of it could easily be sheen to cover a lot of underlying problematic things - it's hard for me to trust Disney to handle that kind of material with any real nuance or understanding, as they tend to pander to mainstream interests too much. Case in point, Rogue One being written as a movie that gives a more nuanced looked at terrorism, being whittled down to create a protagonist that never actually gets her hands dirty. Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I'm genuinely curious, haven't seen Rogue One and BP looks pretty baller to me. Won't stop Rush or someone like that from framing it politically it if it hits big (or tanks for that matter) but I can't think of any reasons to be "very, very wary" based on what we've seen. Wary how and pandering in what way? I remember Beauty and the Beast catching some poo poo for some stupid reason. Is that the sort of thing you're concerned about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Can you elaborate on this a bit more? I'm genuinely curious, haven't seen Rogue One and BP looks pretty baller to me. Rogue One had a lot of re-shoots and it's still a movie kinda sorta about how terrorism is justified when it's against the empire, but in this very distant way where they softened the main character and committed a capital offense by casting Forest Whitaker as basically the rebel side's version of Darth Vader but then only having him in the movie for like two minutes and making hima villain because he performs terrorist attacks against the empire. The characters dish out a lot of big talk about this stuff but the way in which Jyn's hands are kept clean and some other stuff really sticks out when her biggest dramatic moment is her making a speech about how people have to get their hands dirty. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
In all fairness to Rogue One, I feel that there's a benefit to how it's changed; the original concept would have hit harder on the message but had niche appeal which means it would be more likely to have an audience that already agrees with the premise. It lost some edge by becoming more mainstream, but that also comes with having more mainstream appeal. Also Whitaker doesn't really end up a Vader fascimilie outside of appearance; we only see one negative instance of his group (the city fight, and even that doesn't lean on them being bad). The scene with implications of torture has no "payoff"; it's described as unpleasant, but the deserter leaves unharmed in the long run. Admittedly, I'm a bit soft on R1 because I like the ancillary message of "it's not actually possible to be apolitical"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
And you guys think this is due to Whitaker's race? I'm not being argumentative and haven't seen the movie, just trying to clarify what I'm reading. If I'm getting it right, you're saying they had to make FW a "bad guy" because a brown person was committing terrorism even though the film went out of its way to justify it as a force for good? Is that right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:28
|
|