|
Phylodox posted: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? Why would they do that though? It's communicated perfectly fine. This guy on Twitter is literally the first time I've ever seen someone confused about whether the family lived.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
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. There can exist a midpoint between "literally nothing but an obscured distance shot in a 3/4ths of a second scene" and "they hug Superman and thank him." LesterGroans posted:Why would they do that though? It's communicated perfectly fine. This guy on Twitter is literally the first time I've ever seen someone confused about whether the family lived. People in this and the previous Superman thread have literally argued it before. It's the first place I saw it myself. It's not an uncommon viewpoint even if I disagree with it. Hell this conversation is the first time I've seen anyone mention the family in the background of that shot and I only saw them because I went back and framed through the scene.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Why would they do that though? It's communicated perfectly fine. This guy on Twitter is literally the first time I've ever seen someone confused about whether the family lived. I, for one, was very confused by the shower scene in Psycho. I mean, we don't actually see the knife penetrating Janet Leigh's skin and going into her body. Did she just die of a heart attack or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted: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! I can't believe they both used real bullets and also that he managed to hit the camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Phylodox posted: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? The middle ground is they never showed the smouldering pile of bones that used to be a family. Family in danger, superman kills danger, superman angry that he killed. The sequence is too simple to require anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Dan's not confused at all. He said it "looked like." He knows, he's simply stating what it looks like in the shot. It's a perfectly valid opinion and it's a shame to watch people be so disingenuous for the sake of a dogpile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:There can exist a midpoint between "literally nothing but an obscured distance shot in a 3/4ths of a second scene" and "they hug Superman and thank him." There isn't just that obscured shot of them in the distance though, there's also the entire point of the scene. ImpAtom posted:People in this and the previous Superman thread have literally argued it before. It's the first place I saw it myself. It's not an uncommon viewpoint even if I disagree with it. Weird. I don't think I've ever seen it argued before. Now that I know about it it's really silly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I typically don't like when people talk about things in movies being "earned" but this was pretty good. Yeah, it articulated in ways I just quite couldn't why Guardians 2 left me cold (beyond the typical Marvel movie bullshit).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I, for one, was very confused by the shower scene in Psycho. I mean, we don't actually see the knife penetrating Janet Leigh's skin and going into her body. Did she just die of a heart attack or something? We do, actually.  Maybe you're just bad at watching movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Actually, he steers Zod's head into the civilians because he doesn't give a gently caress, and then does a triumphant yowl at how awesome that fight was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:There can exist a midpoint between "literally nothing but an obscured distance shot in a 3/4ths of a second scene" and "they hug Superman and thank him." Ok, and? It's hand-holding baby poo poo. The movie does not need to show something that is so obvious a child can figure it out. Taintrunner posted:Dan's not confused at all. He said it "looked like." He knows, he's simply stating what it looks like in the shot. It's a perfectly valid opinion and it's a shame to watch people be so disingenuous for the sake of a dogpile. This is exactly as disingenuous as what you think we are being disingenuous about. He doesn't know poo poo, he's trying to get internet cred by dunking on the "mistakes" Zach Snyder made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Dan's not confused at all. He said it "looked like." He knows, he's simply stating what it looks like in the shot. It's a perfectly valid opinion and it's a shame to watch people be so disingenuous for the sake of a dogpile. He said looked like in relation to superman screaming at nothing in particular. Or at least that's how I read it. LesterGroans posted:There isn't just that obscured shot of them in the distance though, there's also the entire point of the scene. I've never heard it before either fwiw
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:We do, actually. No way?? Is it a momentary shot?? Also whoa subtext. Well not even subtext . Text.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:We do, actually. Yes, someone who thought Janet Leigh died of a heart attack in Psycho would, in fact, be bad at watching movies. I'm...not sure what you think you're responding to here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:We do, actually. That could have merely scratched her. We don't see how deep it goes into her. She could have a burst appendix and Norman was trying to help her. We don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Actually, he steers Zod's head into the civilians because he doesn't give a gently caress, and then does a triumphant yowl at how awesome that fight was. [INSERT MOMOA "WOOO!" AND "MY MAN!"]
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:[INSERT MOMOA "WOOO!" AND "MY MAN!"] Eagerly awaiting the edited clip with this audio inserted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Dan's not confused at all. He said it "looked like." He knows, he's simply stating what it looks like in the shot. It's a perfectly valid opinion and it's a shame to watch people be so disingenuous for the sake of a dogpile. Maybe. But I looked at his twitter and I think a lot of what he says concerning these films is pretty vitriolic to begin with. Then he turns around and gate keeps on interpretations of the work. Not liking a thing and explaining why you didn't like it is one thing, but what he's doing there is another. It's a shame but I think he makes decent videos and can articulate why he doesn't like something, even if he misses the mark sometimes. This kind of nonsense just seems like it'd be beneath someone like him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Eagerly awaiting the edited clip with this audio inserted. I'd watch the hell out of a supercut of MoS and BvS with random Momoa noises throughout. Get on it, K. Waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:[INSERT MOMOA "WOOO!" AND "MY MAN!"] "Hey Superman, cool duds. What's your power?" "Causing 9/11 times a hundred wherever I go." "My man!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Hm. I'd be a lot more forgiving of Guardians 2 if it had actually made me laugh. When a comedy isn't funny, everything else is almost irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Ok, and? It's hand-holding baby poo poo. The movie does not need to show something that is so obvious a child can figure it out. Cool. Movies are a cinematic language and the ability to properly communicate things to the view is part of that. Mysteriously this thread loves to veer back and forth between something being necessary and something being 'hand-holding baby poo poo' entirely based off if they can be snide shits about it. The idea that Man of Steel is a super-mature and amazingly adult film that doesn't need to 'hold hands' is lol as poo poo when you consider the vast majority of the film doing exactly that. GonSmithe posted:This is exactly as disingenuous as what you think we are being disingenuous about. He doesn't know poo poo, he's trying to get internet cred by dunking on the "mistakes" Zach Snyder made. No, you are disingenuous about this. There is on room for any criticism of Zach Snyder at all in this thread because you're genuinely afraid that acknowledging literally any mistake will be giving in to the terrorism of My Superman. Instead you unironically start complaining about 'hand-holding baby poo poo' in the mass market superhero movie that includes this incredibly subtle shot: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:The middle ground is they never showed the smouldering pile of bones that used to be a family. Family in danger, superman kills danger, superman angry that he killed. The sequence is too simple to require anything else. And the literal context of the scene is "Superman must choose between letting innocent people of his adopted homeworld die or kill the last remaining soul of his true home". And he chooses the innocents. And, now blindingly aware that he is truly alone in the universe and it's by his own hand, he lets out an agonized scream and cradles his head against Lois's body as she rushes to embrace him. It's stupidly straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:I'd be a lot more forgiving of Guardians 2 if it had actually made me laugh. When a comedy isn't funny, everything else is almost irrelevant. An absolute waste of Kurt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Add the "WOOOOOOOOO!" while Superman is flying towards Zod for that punch. No wait. Add his "WOOOOOOOOOOOO!" as Pa Kent is taken by the tornado. That'll show everyone he was actually having a good time! Levity!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Dan's not confused at all. He said it "looked like." He knows, he's simply stating what it looks like in the shot. It's a perfectly valid opinion and it's a shame to watch people be so disingenuous for the sake of a dogpile. Nope, you're misreading his statement. https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/940493552278126592 He's saying it only "looks like" Superman is reacting to nothing at all, on the theory that the film is supposed to be showing him reacting to the charred corpses of the family. Which means he's unhappy that the film is successfully portraying what's going on: Superman is reacting to the situation as a whole, not reacting to one specific thing that he's looking at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Really I've seen Psycho many times and don't remember that shot. I'm bad at watching. The creepy rakes in the hardware store are memorable tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Dan's not confused at all. He said it "looked like." He knows, he's simply stating what it looks like in the shot. It's a perfectly valid opinion and it's a shame to watch people be so disingenuous for the sake of a dogpile. https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/940493552278126592 https://twitter.com/FoldableHuman/status/940654671206764544 You're wrong, he is confused, and he doesn't know poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Really I've seen Psycho many times and don't remember that shot. I'm bad at watching. The creepy rakes in the hardware store are memorable tho. No joke that's one of the first things that springs to mind when I think of Psycho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Cool. Movies are a cinematic language and the ability to properly communicate things to the view is part of that. Mysteriously this thread loves to veer back and forth between something being necessary and something being 'hand-holding baby poo poo' entirely based off if they can be snide shits about it. The idea that Man of Steel is a super-mature and amazingly adult film that doesn't need to 'hold hands' is lol as poo poo when you consider the vast majority of the film doing exactly that. "Not showing the entire point of a scene" is not a failure of "cinematic language." The movie decides to not focus on the family that he VERY OBVIOUSLY saves because that isn't the focus of what happens when he saves them. It focuses on him screaming about what he did. If he didn't save them and it did not show that, THAT would be a failure of cinematic language. I don't really care if you're mad at the thread for not agreeing with you, but I personally try to stay as consistent as possible with what I say, like I did before. The Russian Family subplot in Justice League and the SAVE EVERYONE sequence in Sakovia in Age of Ultron are hand-holding baby poo poo that actively make the movie worse because people look at stuff like this and go BUT I NEED TO SEE EVERYTHING OR ELSE HOW CAN I KNOW!?!?! Movies are a cinematic language, and just like any language people can be bad at reading it and understanding what they are seeing or not seeing and why that might be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
The pursed lips in this are killing me. euphronius posted:Really I've seen Psycho many times and don't remember that shot. I'm bad at watching. The creepy rakes in the hardware store are memorable tho. MacheteZombie posted:No joke that's one of the first things that springs to mind when I think of Psycho. We should form a club.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Cool. Movies are a cinematic language and the ability to properly communicate things to the view is part of that. “Movies are a movie language and part of movies is to communicate things to the view.” Lol sit down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom famously is the guy who says that panels in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns where Batman shoots the thug with a gun and saves the kid is actually Batman shooting the wall behind the guy to scare the guy into dropping the kid. I'm not joking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Really I've seen Psycho many times and don't remember that shot. I honestly don't know if you're being snarky or not, because this thread, but the shot happens at about 1:50-1:52 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VP5jEAP3K4
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:No joke that's one of the first things that springs to mind when I think of Psycho. The knife in the "back" or the creepy rakes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
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. Now we're moving the goalposts to be that it's "not unthinkable that someone might" think something, as opposed to whether what they think is supported by the narrative. There is no middle ground necessary because the family are not 'completely ignored.' The scene is structured around the threat that is posed to them and the action that Clark must take in order to avert this threat. There is literally no point in them being shown in the sequence at all except to be saved. On the other hand, the notion that we should just assume that Clark both destroyed the threat and failed to save these people even though there is absolutely no evidence in the text to support the latter claim is obviously absurd. It doesn't matter if someone might think this. What people might think is not a sufficient indication that they have actually paid attention or are arguing in good faith. Indeed, believing that this family has just been incinerated is dependent upon the spurious implication that, for whatever reason, the filmmakers just left this visual information out. Which is, of course, Foldable's whole objective. This has nothing to do with mounting a critical appraisal of editing in Man of Steel. The actual text doesn't matter, which is why Foldable is inventing his own narrative, and then criticizing the filmmakers for not suitably impressing the viewers with what an awful, cynical narrative they've constructed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I honestly don't know if you're being snarky or not, because this thread, but the shot happens at about 1:50-1:52 in this video: Still don't see it. I'm sorry. It must be very quick. Anyway : comic book movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The knife in the "back" or the creepy rakes? The rakes. Should have clarified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Holy moley. I mean I am a huge fan of MoS but there are certainly things you can legitimately criticize it for, you do not have to reach this loving hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Cool. Movies are a cinematic language and the ability to properly communicate things to the view is part of that. Mysteriously this thread loves to veer back and forth between something being necessary and something being 'hand-holding baby poo poo' entirely based off if they can be snide shits about it. The idea that Man of Steel is a super-mature and amazingly adult film that doesn't need to 'hold hands' is lol as poo poo when you consider the vast majority of the film doing exactly that. Also you edited this second part into the post after I hit quote I'm not being disingenuous at all. I think that if you watch the ending of Man of Steel and you go "WHY HE SCREAM? HE NOT LOOK AT FAMILY WHEN HE SCREAM" like Dan did you are actively an idiot, and that is not the movies fault. It's not a mistake. YOU are being disingenuous calling it a mistake. The scene conveys EXACTLY what it needs to convey without adding in superfluous nonsense. It is not the movie's fault. And ok? It's one of the only "mass market" superhero movies I have watched again after the first time because it actually has substance to it. I'm not even going to disagree with you that that is hand-holdy, because it is. However, I'd much rather the film hand-hold people who don't understand symbolism and make it look nice than adding in superfluous exposition that ignores EVERYTHING ELSE about the storytelling of the scene. GonSmithe fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:17
|
|