|
Intellectual property accelerationism, once Disney owns all the cultural properties the cannibalistic structures of capitalism will devour it.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Disney should buy Warner Bros as well so we can finally get the live action Amalgam adaptation we deserve:
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
I can't even think of a good joke for the Disney/Fox thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I can't even think of a good joke for the Disney/Fox thing. It's just not really funny at all. A monopoly of almost all blockbuster films is pretty much the antithesis of how the blockbuster movement started in the 70s. It's just terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Uhhh... Disney's The Fox and the Hound and The Fox. No, drat it, that sucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Top Gun posted:So is Constantin the producers of the FF movies? What role do they play? Do they make any story/casting/creative decisions for the FF films? IIRC all they do is get a producer credit in the movies and collect a check.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:What the gently caress is wrong with his feet? That's just how feet were in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's incredibly loving depressing. I can't wait for six months of "DOES THIS MEAN WE FINALLY GET THE OG STAR WARS" when Kathleen Kennedy already said "no, you're not getting the OG Star Wars."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
I do feel like if I were Disney, I'd gently hint at a future in which the pre-special editions were released even if it isn't practical or worth it, just to stoke the already-adoring fanbase some more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Timby posted:I can't wait for six months of "DOES THIS MEAN WE FINALLY GET THE OG STAR WARS" when Kathleen Kennedy already said "no, you're not getting the OG Star Wars." *every character from every Star Wars & MCU game, cartoon, TV show, book and reality come barging into the producers meeting* Mr. Apollo fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
A friend of mine wrote this about the issues with Guardians 2. It's an interesting read.quote:See, the big escape plan involves Yondu straight-up murdering every Ravager on his ship with the help of his trusty arrow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
No one needs to take anything FoldableHuman has to say seriously ever again: https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/940493552278126592
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Pr'aps that's who no-one noticed dying in Suicide Squad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
We joke a lot about MoS being so traumatic that it causes people to hallucinate things that don't actually happen in the film but this seems to suggest that's actually true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Jutsuka posted:No one needs to take anything FoldableHuman has to say seriously ever again: The rest of that aside it's been a while since I saw it but doesn't he save them from getting crispy? Like, that's what ultimately forces the suicide by cop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The rest of that aside it's been a while since I saw it but doesn't he save them from getting crispy? Like, that's what ultimately forces the suicide by cop. Yes, and quite clearly so. Dan Olson is either blind or disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Wait hold on, does that guy think that Superman lets Zod fry the family or twists his neck into frying them? Because that's demonstrably not true, you can freeze-frame it/rewind it and see that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h55YePGLYHQ&t=124s What a contemptible moron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The rest of that aside it's been a while since I saw it but doesn't he save them from getting crispy? Like, that's what ultimately forces the suicide by cop. It's been argued both ways. The family is not shown again after the last shot of the beam being literally right on top of them. Generally the way it's framed appears to make you think otherwise (Superman pulls Zod's head UP before snapping his neck, aiming his eyebeams away from the family) but it's not inaccurate to say that it can be read either way and there is evidence to support it. That said uh, a half-second shot of the family running away afterwards would probably not have been a bad thing to underline "Superman did a great tragedy to save these lives" instead of having them vanish off the face of the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The rest of that aside it's been a while since I saw it but doesn't he save them from getting crispy? Like, that's what ultimately forces the suicide by cop. I think we even SEE them after the fact. Not like, directly and cheering and poo poo that you'd get in a Marvel movie but I think we see them scamper off But yes, they're alive. He takes a life to save theirs Screaming at nothing in particular loving Christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
"This guy still giving you trouble?" Snap's neck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
 Alive and unharmed. Just requires the viewer to pay attention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I think we even SEE them after the fact. You don't see them scamper off. I looked again and you see them in the distance after the neck-snap and then not again.  So they are alive, it's just a weirdly obscure way to show it especially because nobody's going to be looking at the background in that shot. Jutsuka posted:Alive and unharmed. Just requires the viewer to pay attention. This is the laziest criticism. It's a badly handled part of the scene because "to pay attention" means the viewer would be looking at a muted part of the background instead of the brightly colored protagonist and the corpse falling to the floor which dominate the scene. Edit: Also keep in mind that shot is literally less than a second long. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I think we even SEE them after the fact. We don’t, actually. We neither see nor hear them after the fact. The last we see of that family is them almost being eclipsed by Zod’s eyebeams. There is a conspicuous puff of black smoke emanating from where they were in the long shot of Lois comforting Superman.  EDIT: Looks like I was wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
It makes sense that Superman wouldn't really be bothered if they died because after all he literally just murdered thousands of people in his fight with Zod (citation needed)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around just how visually illiterate someone would have to be to think the family in MoS got vaporized, rather than saved 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You don't see them scamper off. I looked again and you see them in the distance after the neck-snap and then not again. It's not "weirdly obscured" or "badly handled", it's just unimportant. Of course the family didn't die. The focus of the scene is on Superman because that's the important part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around just how visually illiterate someone would have to be to think the family in MoS got vaporized, rather than saved without a doubt there were subtly different versions of MOS/BVS show at certain theaters, it's the only explanation for how weird people get about them
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
To be fair they could have shown them after the fact. They didn't need to cut away from Superman and could have kept focus on him, as that's the whole point of the scene but them running away in the background probably would have helped. Then again, an alien demi-god almost vaporized them with energy beams from his eyes. They're probably still squatting there. I wonder how much money they spent on a shrink. You going to help them pay for that, Superman? No? Not my Superman!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around just how visually illiterate someone would have to be to think the family in MoS got vaporized, rather than saved Come on. With the benefit of repeated viewings and freeze frame, yeah, but even the people saying they did survive were iffy about the details. One moment of them crouching amidst some rubble where they’re clearly not the focus of attention? How is it strange that people who’ve only seen the movie once might miss that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Timby posted:A friend of mine wrote this about the issues with Guardians 2. It's an interesting read. This has been going for a while. In the first Guardians movie, Star-Lord kills two people and tries to kill a third, not knowing who they were except that they wanted to take him with them. He did this in order to make money, and shows no hesitation or remorse. His actions are shown to be justified. The movie presents him as a sympathetic viewpoint character BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Come on. With the benefit of repeated viewings and freeze frame, yeah, but even the people saying they did survive were iffy about the details. One moment of them crouching amidst some rubble where they’re clearly not the focus of attention? How is it strange that people who’ve only seen the movie once might miss that? Who gives a poo poo if you see them afterwards or not? It's, like, the entire point of the scene, that he kills Zod to save them. I'm not talking about people missing a shot, I'm talking about a much more basic failure in cognition and ability to process film language.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
He is part of a crew that murders tons of people in the Crucible or whatever it's called.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Jutsuka posted:No one needs to take anything FoldableHuman has to say seriously ever again: Man, this guy is a real dumbass, huh? Phylodox posted:Come on. With the benefit of repeated viewings and freeze frame, yeah, but even the people saying they did survive were iffy about the details. One moment of them crouching amidst some rubble where they’re clearly not the focus of attention? How is it strange that people who’ve only seen the movie once might miss that? ?????? He obviously saved them, that's the entire point of the scene. The movie does not need to have the family RUN UP TO SUPERMAN AND HUG HIM while he's screaming in order to know they are saved. This is why you get dumbass poo poo like the Russian family in Justice League or the WE HAVE TO SAVE ALL THE PEOPLE in Age of Ultron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Who gives a poo poo if you see them afterwards or not? It's, like, the entire point of the scene, that he kills Zod to save them. I'm not talking about people missing a shot, I'm talking about a much more basic failure in cognition and ability to process film language. I mean...Superman kills Zod, and, like that one guy said, he raises his gaze to where that family should be and screams. I didn't read it as the family being dead, but it's not unthinkable that someone might. Like that guy. GonSmithe posted:He obviously saved them, that's the entire point of the scene. The movie does not need to have the family RUN UP TO SUPERMAN AND HUG HIM while he's screaming in order to know they are saved. This is why you get dumbass poo poo like the Russian family in Justice League or the WE HAVE TO SAVE ALL THE PEOPLE in Age of Ultron. Can't there be a middle ground? Somewhere between completely ignoring them and zooming in on them after the fact? Even some foley work so you can hear them existing in the background? Phylodox fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I mean...Superman kills Zod, and, like that one guy said, he raises his gaze to where that family should be and screams. I didn't read it as the family being dead, but it's not unthinkable that someone might. Like that guy. He's screaming because he killed Zod. It's unthinkable to think someone might think that because it's hard to believe someone can be so bad at watching a movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Jutsuka posted:No one needs to take anything FoldableHuman has to say seriously ever again: Hm. Timby posted:A friend of mine wrote this about the issues with Guardians 2. It's an interesting read. I typically don't like when people talk about things in movies being "earned" but this was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
He probably drank too much cough syrup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Hey guys I found this glaring editing mistake in Videodrome. Max Renn is pointing a gun to his temple and the film cuts to black just before we hear a gunshot. For all we know, he missed!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:He's screaming because he killed Zod. It's unthinkable to think someone might think that because it's hard to believe someone can be so bad at watching a movie. Yeah, this. The weight of the moment caught up to him. He killed one of the last members of his people. It's hard to go from not throwing a punch in your life, to throwing punches against powerful beings like yourself to killing one within a span of a few days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 20:05 |
|
|
LesterGroans posted:It's not "weirdly obscured" or "badly handled", it's just unimportant. Of course the family didn't die. The focus of the scene is on Superman because that's the important part. That basically sums up a lot of the problems people have with MoS right there to be honest. "The people Superman saved are unimportant" is basically the crux of the criticism people have with the way the direction was handled. Superman saving people is a given, the film's choice to focus on Superman over giving lip service to the lives he saved leads to people coming away with an unwanted view of the film. It's why the sequel focuses far, far, far more on that or on the people Superman saved, failed to save, and on the consequences of both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:46
|
|