|
Mr. Apollo posted:Eisenberg was originally supposed to be Jimmy Olsen. Deb continues to own. Zack is a lucky man.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
He's an inspired choice for Lex. I loved his speech at the party. Books are knowledge and knowledge is power, and I am... no. Um, no. What am I? What was I saying? The bittersweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power because... because that is paradoxical and, um... thank you for coming. Eisenberg ad-libbing that is hilarious and impressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:The bittersweet pain among men is having knowledge with no power because... because that is paradoxical He ad libbed this line? Gat dam. Thought maybe Terrio dropped that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:He's an inspired choice for Lex. I loved his speech at the party. The speech is even better when you remember that he's deliberately invited three of the most powerful superheroes to the event and they're all lacking very specific knowledge
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
K.Waste, I really dig the proof of concept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
He has to work so hard to avoid villain monologuing despite thinking everyone is so dumb and he's so smart
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The speech is even better when you remember that he's deliberately invited three of the most powerful superheroes to the event and they're all lacking very specific knowledge
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:You're telling me that Bryan Cranston — who was rumored to play Lex as one point — couldn't play some narcissistic, madman billionaire with a god complex effectively? I guess I don't see why that would be interesting. MacheteZombie posted:Deb continues to own. Zack is a lucky man. Say what you will for Zack Snyder's movies, but he very, very, very rarely misfires on a casting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
He cast an underwear model as WONDER WOMAN!?!? I don't want a 90 pound Wonder Woman! She worked in the army? MAYBE THE MAIL ROOM. She could be blown over by a stiff breeze. /Campea
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The editing is garbage in. This is hard to address because in the year plus this film has been out I haven't see one example yet of what people think is "garbage editing". Zero. It's just taken as a given that you know what the hell people are referring to. For that matter, no one ever offers an example of it in Suicide Squad either (though I can readily think of two examples there - they clearly cut out Deadshot and Harley loving, and the Croc underwater scene is confusingly edited.).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:K.Waste, I really dig the proof of concept. Thanks, mate. Heads up that those stills I posted are after I did some more work beefing up the contrast a bit at Terrorist Fistbump's suggestion. The masking for scenes where the color red is isolated has also been improved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Everyone else has pretty well covered this and I don't want to make it seem like I'm piling on The difference between Cranston and Eisenberg is that of what kind of person they're supposed to be. Cranston can play a quiet badass who is very intimidating That's not the Lex they wanted. The Lex they wanted and wrote for was a tech guru weedy little poo poo, something Cranston is uniquely unsuited for. He's not a hipster, but he is the type that'd call himself an intellectual like it meant something. He's the rules lawyering grognard that you have to deal with in a bad DnD campaign. Cranston would have been a great Lex Luthor, but he wouldn't have been able to do the same type of modern day Silicone Valley creeper. he'd be good as an Aging Bill Gates or evil Steve Jobs type if you had to stick him in the nerd power role.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:"That son of a bitch brought the war to us, two years ago. Jesus, Alfred, count the dead. Thousands of people. What's next? Millions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there is even a one-percent chance he is our enemy then we have to take it as an absolute certainty! And we have to destroy him." But Batman's motivations are so mysterious and impenetrable! If only he just outright stated it.. no that's not enough, maybe if he stated it twice people wouldn't be so confused? quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is hard to address because in the year plus this film has been out I haven't see one example yet of what people think is "garbage editing". Zero. It's just taken as a given that you know what the hell people are referring to. For that matter, no one ever offers an example of it in Suicide Squad either (though I can readily think of two examples there - they clearly cut out Deadshot and Harley loving, and the Croc underwater scene is confusingly edited.). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDclQowcE9I
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Why do people make video essays where 3/4 of the frame is their face and 1/4 of the frame is the thing they want you to look at
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Why do people make video essays where 3/4 of the frame is their face and 1/4 of the frame is the thing they want you to look at Copyright notices, human psychology (people enjoy seeing faces more than content when being talked to) and the Youtube Search Algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
That guy looks like he lives under a bridge
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
I remember watching this, it was bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
sponges posted:That guy looks like he lives under a bridge He has a better haircut now. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I remember watching this, it was bad. You asked for an example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:You asked for an example. Almost all of his examples were bad, mostly stuff about how he didn't like the soundtrack or the character designs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Speaking of, here's a 20 minute video about how the action scenes in Dark Knight are a goddamn mess: https://vimeo.com/28792404 "Continuity? What continuity???"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Almost all of his examples were bad, mostly stuff about how he didn't like the soundtrack or the character designs. Literally the entire video is about the editing, cutting and overall tempo of the movie. Go watch it again and stay off the booze this time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Speaking of, here's a 20 minute video about how the action scenes in Dark Knight are a goddamn mess: This was very good, as it was done by an editor who knows what he's talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:But Batman's motivations are so mysterious and impenetrable! If only he just outright stated it.. no that's not enough, maybe if he stated it twice people wouldn't be so confused? Huh. I always thought the line was "maybe it's the Gotham City boy in me..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Crossposting from the JL threadSnowglobe of Doom posted:Yeah you could tell from day 1 that it was in deep trouble:  JL
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Speaking of, here's a 20 minute video about how the action scenes in Dark Knight are a goddamn mess: This video is as amusing to me today as when I first saw it years ago. The guy who made it doesn't seem to realize that strictly quantitatively analyzing a movie like this is completely meaningless except from a professional viewpoint. Whether a sequence contains mistakes or not is not in itself inherently meaningful, it only matters if the audience catches on. It's irrelevant that a piece of editing is objectively from a quantitative and logical viewpoint might be a 'mess' when audiences are too bewildered by what is actually happening on-screen to notice. The eyes might see the mistake but the brain never interpreted it and therefore it is the same as if the mistake was never there at all. For example, audiences didn't see that scene where Batmobile blocks the RPG and think 'wow I sure wonder where the police truck went in those 8 frames, this is really bad'. The focus was never on the car, so no one noticed despite it visibly being gone. Instead what they saw was a really cool shot that was part of one of the collectively most beloved action sequences of that decade. The entire sequence is a mess, but only technically speaking. If we look at it from a qualitative viewpoint then we find ourselves reaching the polar opposite conclusion. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This was very good, as it was done by an editor who knows what he's talking about. Like if any of you guys think this is a good way of analyzing editing then I fully get why you're having trouble understanding why audiences collectively found Suicide Squad dull and confusing. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
sponges posted:That guy looks like he lives under a bridge gently caress your bourgeois ideas of fashion, looking like that is perfectly normal and fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
When I think criticism, I definitely think of someone screaming at the screen while drinking an IPA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:But Batman's motivations are so mysterious and impenetrable! If only he just outright stated it.. no that's not enough, maybe if he stated it twice people wouldn't be so confused? The problem has nothing to do with whether or not Beavis conveys this information, or whether it does so enough to register as significant. The problem is that Snyder & Co. commit the cardinal sin of commercial filmmaking, which is to have character and conflict come first. In Civil War, the ideological conflict between the characters is portrayed by having them sitting in a conference room, watching a mash-up of clips from previous films, and then having the characters snipe at each other about what they should do. In Beavis, there is also a scene in a conference room, but the point is that Clark's stated ideological objection to Bruce's behavior is not privileged information. Nobody is rolling out the carpet for Clark's ideals just because he's Superman. The symbolic order of the film is dictated not by his being a headlining character, but by how this meets conflict. He's ridiculed and told his ideas are pointless, and then his girlfriend walks in and immediately steals the floor with her own story that is, 'officially,' unrelated to what Clark is trying to expose. When Clark actually meets his ideological opponent, it is what he thinks to be a coincidence. And in the meantime, there is this omnipresent conflict - the characters say their peace, but Bruce does not actually care about Clark Kent, he's trying to hack Lex, and then even his mission unexpectedly runs into conflict with this mysterious woman in red. Beavis takes place in a world of constant momentum and conflicting goals. Ultimately, all of these circumstances prove to be multifaceted of the same pervading conflict. So, Beavis doesn't do a good job of conveying its themes, because its themes are inextricable from action. Good thematic expression is equated with the film's plot grinding to a halt so that the characters can have a debate in a 'safe space' where the prestige of their power fantasy is protected from being undermined.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Almost all of his examples were bad, mostly stuff about how he didn't like the soundtrack or the character designs. Care to elaborate on this? I have to watch the video again since its been a while, but I remember thinking some points were pretty alright.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Jim Emerson's Dark Knight editing video was a goddamn embarrassment when he posted it, and Joseph Kahn literally had to explain very carefully that at no point did Nolan do anything that confused the audience, and the choices made don't break the "rules" of film editing, which one has to note are actually only suggestions. http://josephkahn.blogspot.com/2011/09/analyzing-action.html?m=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:Care to elaborate on this? I have to watch the video again since its been a while, but I remember thinking some points were pretty alright. He's being disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Regarding the whole "if you want to see his monument, look around you" quote is referring to Christopher Wren. A goon wrote this about him a while ago:quote:The basic connection is the number of churches he built, 52. A number that frequently comes up in DC. It goes deeper than that as well. Snyder has been described as employing a baroque style of filmmaking and Christopher Wren can be considered a grandfather of the english baroque architectural style. Even further, his architecture was widely influential for a time, and when he was rebuilding churches he inspired people who lost had lost faith to return to their faith. Along with this rebuilding effort, London actually redesigned the layout of the burnt area to be designed with people in mind. They made vast "improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood. New public buildings were created on their predecessors' sites; perhaps the most famous is St Paul's Cathedral and its smaller cousins, Christopher Wren's 50 new churches. (Wikipedia) The quote used in BvS is off Wren's monument, and applied to BvS is directly referencing the "build a better world" aspect of Wren's work. So you know, that's neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Like if any of you guys think this is a good way of analyzing editing then I fully get why you're having trouble understanding why audiences collectively found Suicide Squad dull and confusing. It's more a critique of direction/blocking/continuity than anything and a lot of that could be down to the scene getting cut down or shuffled around for reasons of timing. The editor did a drat fine job cobbling all those mismatched shots into a scene that flowed and made total sense to the audience. I don't remember feeling that anything was out of place when I watched the scene. It's just interesting when a guy takes you by the hand and slowly points out all the inconsistencies and you go "Holy poo poo I would never have noticed any of that"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is hard to address because in the year plus this film has been out I haven't see one example yet of what people think is "garbage editing". Zero. It's just taken as a given that you know what the hell people are referring to. Many people have pointed it out, including myself. Even most of the film's defenders acknowledge that the editing was rather disjointed, jarring, needed some work and generally concede that it was one of the movie's weaknesses. It's taken as a given because it's been beaten to loving death and because hardly anyone - fan or not - cites the editing as a strong point. I'm glad you thought everything was A-OK with the storytelling but most people disagree with you. poo poo, even fans of the film were saying poo poo like "the extended cut will sort it out" and claiming that the studio hosed everything up so suggesting that "zero" people made this case it out seems disingenuous. E: Also, it is ok that got I entirely GOT the Luthor character and what they were aiming for but just thought that Eisenberg sucked? My disappointment in his performance had nothing to do with my expectations; I mean, beyond expecting that it might be good. People seem to be arguing that if you hated the portrayal (or the performance) that we were all expecting a bald cigar smoking Republican CEO bent on world domination. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Like if any of you guys think this is a good way of analyzing editing then I fully get why you're having trouble understanding why audiences collectively found Suicide Squad dull and confusing. I’m not sure how you know what “audiences collectively” felt about any movie, but audiences sure spent a lot of money watching Suicide Squad, which is odd if it was dull and confusing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:But Batman's motivations are so mysterious and impenetrable! If only he just outright stated it.. no that's not enough, maybe if he stated it twice people wouldn't be so confused? Alfred: You know you can't win this. It's suicide. Bruce Wayne: I'm older now than my father ever was. This may be the only thing I do that matters. Alfred: Twenty years of fighting criminals amounts to nothing? Bruce Wayne: Criminals are like weeds, Alfred; pull one up, another grows in its place. This is about the future of the world. This is my legacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Also, it is ok that got I entirely GOT the Luthor character and what they were aiming for but just thought that Eisenberg sucked? My disappointment in his performance had nothing to do with my expectations; I mean, beyond expecting that it might be good. People seem to be arguing that if you hated the portrayal (or the performance) that we were all expecting a bald cigar smoking Republican CEO bent on world domination. I was addressing people who DIDN'T get it- I even covered that you can acknowledge that it's objectively right without subjectively enjoying it. So you're fine and I don't know why you'd care if you weren't. It's not like my opinion of you matters. It's fine if you don't like things, just like it's fine if you do. Who gives a poo poo? My posts were first about what there was to like about the movies objectively, and then why I enjoyed them specifically. Nothing about what OTHERS should think because I am not the arbiter of what others should think
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:I’m not sure how you know what “audiences collectively” felt about any movie, but audiences sure spent a lot of money watching Suicide Squad, which is odd if it was dull and confusing. I'm not a fan of Suicide Squad, as I've said in this thread, but some people like to project on to the audience what they felt. No one can know what the audience felt about the movie except when you look at box office and user reviews. The latter is only a sample of people who bothered to write a review to begin with. And among that sample you have people on both extreme ends trying to bomb the score or to elevate it with perfect reviews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:I’m not sure how you know what “audiences collectively” felt about any movie, but audiences sure spent a lot of money watching Suicide Squad, which is odd if it was dull and confusing. Audience receptions and sales do not have a causal relationship. I mean I paid to see the movie in cinema but that doesn't mean I or any of my friends who tagged along liked it. Also, we have the internet these days so you don't have to rely on my anecdotes. If we look up any kind of aggregate site what you can see is that critics rated Suicide Squad on the turd side of things while audiences put it around slightly above 60% (slightly different per site) which in internet user movie ratings is the equivalent of 'this movie sure was a movie'. Suicide Squad while a disappointing at best movie is a great example of how you can sell anything in the short-term if you slush enough beloved brands, marketing and funds into a blender, the slumping sales of Justice League arguably being the long-term consequences of this strategy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:14
|
|