|
Xenomrph posted:I guess I don’t browse enough CineD threads these days, is he like “Diet SuperMechaGodzilla - all of the pretension, none of the insight”? Also actual genuine misguided moral high horse rather than being a contrarian/gadfly.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
This tangent seems like a way to avoid self-examination. It helps avoid questions like why it's necessary to get Gunn back on board to direct another movie (that sentimentalizes space mercenaries). The most people usually come up with is that it was wrong for Gunn to get fired because of a Nazi for criticizing Donald Trump, but that's just saying that it's the wrong person who got him fired, not that the wrong person got fired. Fans are very open aboutwanting him to direct another movie for them, which is simply an admission of venality. I doubt people would care nearly as much if it wasn't the same type of director like Gunn: one with a solid base of woke-ish fanboys. If it was Michael Bay, probably no one would bat an eyelash. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:(that sentimentalizes space mercenaries) The entire internet has a permanent boner for Firefly, you're not gonna get anywhere with this flaccid barb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
ricdesi posted:The entire internet has a permanent boner for Firefly Well yeah, Marvel and Gunn are very much in debt to Joss Whedon and his terrible writing. And Whedon's artistic and personal noxiousness are perfect compliments of each other, while Gunn got caught up in the same trap as his Marvel movies: trying to be both edgy and family-friendly. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
ricdesi posted:Yeah, that was all I planned on replying to/with. Every time a poster who should know better gets called out for replying to BotL they claim it's the last time. Stop letting them derail threads. Make the last time you replied to them the actual last time. Xenomrph posted:I guess I don’t browse enough CineD threads these days, is he like “Diet SuperMechaGodzilla - all of the pretension, none of the insight”? They don't respond to posts, they respond to a weird, narrative-driven strawman of a post. Their posts in this thread are a a good example, where they paint people who like GotG as "manchildren" and the narrative about flawed people operating outside mainstream society still having the choice to do good as a "manchild fantasy" so they never have to actually engage with the work on any critical level. Then, to cut the people who would call them out on it off at the pass, they make subjective assessments like they're actual fact. It's a bizarre hot-take-driven argumentative style, reminiscent of the worst parts of Twitter, and if you really pin them down on anything they just don't respond to your points, like above where a poster replied to them point by point and they responded without actually addressing any of the points. Nothing of value does or has come out of engaging with BotL, and when people engage in their circuitous argument traps it just derails threads for pages. Look at the last two pages, then realise that if BotL's posts and everything replying to them were deleted, nothing of value would be lost. That's it in a nutshell. E: To be clear, I think BotL is a really interesting poster. They consistently bring up arguments that, while flawed, cause me to look at and think about my beliefs and opinions in a light I wouldn't otherwise. I just think that the very same qualities that make their posts so interesting also make them totally unintelligible in conversation. If everyone would just stop replying to them their posts would be a welcome addition to the forum, but as it stands I'm real glad that they don't seem to post outside CD that often because people cannot loving control themselves and its nice to be able to avoid those derails sometimes. Shit Fuckasaurus fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Plastik posted:They don't respond to posts, they respond to a weird, narrative-driven strawman of a post. Their posts in this thread are a a good example, where they paint people who like GotG as "manchildren" and the narrative about flawed people operating outside mainstream society still having the choice to do good as a "manchild fantasy" so they never have to actually engage with the work on any critical level. Then, to cut the people who would call them out on it off at the pass, they make subjective assessments like they're actual fact. It's a bizarre hot-take-driven argumentative style, reminiscent of the worst parts of Twitter, and if you really pin them down on anything they just don't respond to your points, like above where a poster replied to them point by point and they responded without actually addressing any of the points.. I've engaged GotG on a critical level several times. For example, I often point out that the franchise's lead character is a manchild who kills and thieves because he saw Indiana Jones as a child and is trying to emulate him. This seems at first satirical, but the narrative competely vindicates him as a genuine and sympathetic hero. This is a baffling choice for a director to make. Fans love Star-Lord, though, probably because he serves as a self-insert character for them. "Flawed people operating outside mainstream society still having the choice to do good," as it turns out, is also a perfect description of Academi or the Camorra. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
It's easy to respond to "jerk detected" though. I get enough disingenuous "arguing" from my president. Fake edit: (that's my hot take)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Shit Fuckasaurus fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUIFUZ_485Y
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
unfortunately 4 u Plastik, argument winners in CineD are decided by their skill at embedding media...better luck next time
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
My favorite part of this conversation is that "flawed people operating outside of mainstream society, but they love their family" is the premise of every single Prestige TV show since The Sopranos became a hit, so much so to the point that Disney has tried its hand at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:My favorite part of this conversation is that "flawed people operating outside of mainstream society, but they love their family" is the premise of every single Prestige TV show since The Sopranos became a hit, so much so to the point that Disney has tried its hand at it. ....what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:....what? whats the confusion
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
I get it now, but the "love their family" stuff threw me off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
What enabled you to get it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I guess I don’t browse enough CineD threads these days, is he like “Diet SuperMechaGodzilla - all of the pretension, none of the insight”? Cnut the Great was Diet SMG, but with your proportions reversed, which is why it sucks that he doesn't post here anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 01:35
|
|
|
NotJustANumber99 posted:What enabled you to get it? I saw the power of Jesus in the toilet
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Out of curiosity since people on the internet had been talking about it, I went and pulled up James Gunn's now-deleted blog. And.......now I'm really confused as to why Disney suddenly fired the guy. Really confused. His blog must have at least a dozen edgy puerile jokes in just the few pages I skimmed through. He jokes about getting raped by his boss, having sex with a llama, getting molested by his uncle, his friend eating poo poo, gay incest orgies, and how not seeing his latest movie will cause the next 9/11, etc and that was all in like 4 pages. He signs off every post by telling his readers to go gently caress themselves. Which was of course completely in line with the types of movies he was making at that time. Like, how did Disney not know who they hired? I could imagine that even a big company like Disney could have overlooked some super-edgy tweets among the thousands and thousands of tweets Gunn apparently made, but did someone seriously never take a single gander at his personal website? I'm guessing that in total there's probably dozens if not hundreds of jokes on there in the exact same vein as the ones on twitter that got him fired. Admittedly, the same types of jokes probably do look worse on Twitter, since Twitter by its nature strips out all the context from tweets when they're pulled up from the archives later, but it looks like all Mike Cernovich did was winnow Gunn's edgy shitpost jokes down to only the pedo jokes to try and make it look like Gunn had some sort of fixation with pedo jokes. But it still seems like Disney had to have known what Gunn's pre-Marvel-employment internet footprint was like and shouldn't have been at all suprised by any of those things he had vomited up on twitter, and thus should have also known that he had posted massive gobs of offensive jokes and that Cernovich's focus on child molestation jokes was just selective filtering. What gives? I don't know, unless maybe it was the Marvel division who did all the hiring and background investigations on their directors so that when that when James Gunn's background got up to the pearl-clutchers at Disney thanks to Cernovich they were shocked that they had hired such a person. That doesn't make much sense. Did they already know, but really think that the guy best known for Pizzagate was going to be able to kick up such a controversy that they'd inevitably have to fire Gunn? Wouldn't they want to wait longer than 24 hours to see how the controversy was brewing to make a decision? And also if so, that was really stupid, since Cernovich's type of alt-right trolls typically give up and move on to their next target as soon as they realize that they're not getting anywhere. I don't know, it just seems like the more I read about this incident, the dumber and more nonsensical Disney's decision seems. Like, literally makes no sense to the point where I have to wonder if there wasn't something else to it. But then the Marvel part of the company were allegedly pushing their higher-ups to re-hire him, which I think makes it look more like a fuckup than a excuse to get rid of someone they already wanted to get rid of, since if they had already decided to ditch him it would presumably have been Marvel behind that decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
It goes like this. Fiege hires Gunn for his talent because I'm going to assume he's a fan. His film Super, came out only year or so before he was announced as the director of Guardians. Cut to 2018, Disney's higher ups, not Marvel, fired Gunn. Honestly a part of me feels like they didn't know it was something he said years ago, and assumed it was something he just said. Or they wanted to kill one to appease the trash-right after Roseanne got fired for being a garbage lady. It may have been possible that the higher ups didn't know anything about his content before, but I'm sure Marvel did, as they asked him to re-write the script to add more of his own voice to the film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Admittedly, the same types of jokes probably do look worse on Twitter, since Twitter by its nature strips out all the context from tweets when they're pulled up from the archives later, but it looks like all Mike Cernovich did was winnow Gunn's edgy shitpost jokes down to only the pedo jokes to try and make it look like Gunn had some sort of fixation with pedo jokes. But it still seems like Disney had to have known what Gunn's pre-Marvel-employment internet footprint was like and shouldn't have been at all suprised by any of those things he had vomited up on twitter, and thus should have also known that he had posted massive gobs of offensive jokes and that Cernovich's focus on child molestation jokes was just selective filtering. What gives? Disney are hypocrites. This is why they greenlighted movies that sentimentalize mercenaries but then fired the man responsible out of ethical concerns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Disney are hypocrites. This is why they greenlighted movies that sentimentalize mercenaries but then fired the man responsible out of ethical concerns. Oh poo poo son this is a new take. You got any more?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 08:55
|
|
|
It's not going to help, but I feel the need to point out that the whole romanticising/sentimentalising mercenaries horse has already bolted in Hollywood in particular and pop culture in general a long, long time ago. And I wouldn't call it even the third most problematic undertone of Marvel movies in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 09:00
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It's not going to help, but I feel the need to point out that the whole romanticising/sentimentalising mercenaries horse has already bolted in Hollywood in particular and pop culture in general a long, long time ago. This doesn't really stand up to scrutiny, and in fact you seem to use "mercenaries" to signify any sort of adventurer. Like how ricdesi claimed that it's impossible to criticize "antihero films" because they've existed for a long time, but neglected to mention that's an incredibly broad category of films that can have radical approaches to "antiheroes": How many movies try to make audiences pity and sympathize with a manchild mercenary because his mum died when he was just a little kid? e: The overall point is of course that this reflect Gunn's and Disney's pratfalls: both tried to be moral but ended up building on sand. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Aug 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 09:14
|
|
|
My hot take is that the plot of Guardians of the Galaxy is, actually, not really relevant to this discussion at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:My hot take is that the plot of Guardians of the Galaxy is, actually, not really relevant to this discussion at all. Well yeah, that's why I'm tacking the all-too relevant themes instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 09:23
|
|
|
I remember when this board was proclaiming the first GotG to be even greater than Star Wars
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:23
|
|
|
Problems with GotG: I’ll never buy Chris Pratt as a shredded hunky leading man, the same way I don’t really buy Ryan Reynolds as a shredded hunk, he’s always gonna just be Van Wilder and Pratt will always be Andy for me Drax’s character is so 2-dimensional and still outshines every other cast member, making the whole cast flat. Groot is too powerful, it’s like “what if Chewbacca were also a shapeshifting Jedi wizard that couldn’t die!?” For 2018, Rocket Racoon’s CGI is bad for someone who gets as much screentime as he does. The female warrior princess’s character’s entire arc revolves around men entirely. That said I liked those movies and I’m sad Gunn’s career got bullied into a dumpster for now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I remember when this board was proclaiming the first GotG to be even greater than Star Wars Yeah, poo poo can get crazy when a new MCU film comes out. There are still people calling Infinity War good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:I remember when this board was proclaiming the first GotG to be even greater than Star Wars Star Wars is pretty cheesy, honestly. Sometimes not the good kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Yeah, poo poo can get crazy when a new MCU film comes out. There are still people calling Infinity War good. Infinity War was "good". That's all it was, though. It was not a standout film even among the MCU films. Thanos was a dumb villain with a dumb plan that makes no sense. If he'd given it even 30 seconds of thought, don't you think he could have a better solution for "too many beings in the Universe and not enough resources" than just "disintegrate half of them"? He had a literal magic glove that could do anything and that's his big plan? That's what the previous 150 films have been building toward? Like, he's not even mad or angry so why didn't Dr. Strange just sit down and have a meeting with Thanos and his Black Order and discuss what he wants and the best ways to achieve it? Dr. Strange could check out the future for him to see how his plans might turn out and they could develop something mutually beneficial. Maybe create more resources? Maybe make more planets habitable? Maybe open up access to the "food" dimension? Maybe slow down the rate of reproduction? A trillion things are better than his grade-school "just get rid of half of everybody" plan, especially since its now canon that he also killed off half of all life, all life, even bacteria, plants, bugs, water bears, everything. That makes it a ecological disaster and solves nothing. Guess what? The proportions of predator to prey to food is still exactly the same. The teamups and the fights were cool to watch, though. Oh, I agree that Marvel knew exactly what they were getting when they hired Gunn and that Disney wasn't worried about their money printing machine until someone made noise about it. To Disney, I guess the directors are just interchangeable? Like who gives a gently caress? But to Marvel, they at least want a consistent story across the individual character arcs. I mean, I give a gently caress; I don't want to go watch a Guardians 3 that wasn't directed by Gunn. If they are going to do that, they might as well just reboot the Guardians with Stallone's team. What do you think the discussion with Taika Watiti was about? In the end: it's all about optics. Is that capitalism or just corporatism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Lmao that nerds have been primed to accept genocide because Marvel showed Thanos as sympathetic and uncritically sold them malthusian thought
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Lmao that nerds have been primed to accept genocide because Marvel showed Thanos as sympathetic and uncritically sold them malthusian thought Lennie is sympathetic, but George was still right to put him down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Like how ricdesi claimed that it's impossible to criticize "antihero films" because they've existed for a long time I never said or suggested this, but please, continue being full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
ricdesi posted:I never said or suggested this, but please, continue being full of poo poo. ricdesi posted:Nobody tell BravestOfTheLamps we've had antihero films since literally the 19th century. You're saying that it's silly to criticize Gunn's work as morally bankrupt because... antihero films have been around for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Problems with GotG: The difference here for me, tho, that Reynolds has always been a shredded hunk, even if he played goofy characters. I don't buy him much as a leading man either, but he's been playing shredded dudes forever. Pratt's too goofy for me, though I do think he can carry a movie well enough. GotG works because of the ensemble tho and not b/c of him imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
It would be fascinating to see the alternate universe where Glenn Howerton got the Starlord gig instead of Pratt. Like obviously it would still be a Marvel Machine flick, but Howerton definitely skews closer in tone and range and performance style of stuff like Super and Slither.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Fart City posted:It would be fascinating to see the alternate universe where Glenn Howerton got the Starlord gig instead of Pratt. Like obviously it would still be a Marvel Machine flick, but Howerton definitely skews closer in tone and range and performance style of stuff like Super and Slither. He'd be less smarmy, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
I have a feeling that Howerton skews a little too dark for what Marvel might've wanted. They have to fall on the right side of loveable, and Pratt clearly does that for them seeing as he plays Star-Lord as a big killer puppy. However, I think Howerton would've sold the character's anger better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I have a feeling that Howerton skews a little too dark for what Marvel might've wanted. They have to fall on the right side of loveable, and Pratt clearly does that for them seeing as he plays Star-Lord as a big killer puppy. However, I think Howerton would've sold the character's anger better. They gambled with RDJ back in the beginning and that has never stopped paying off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
Similarly, and amusingly given news about his recent comments, Ethan Hawke was very close to being Doctor Strange. Jensen Ackles from SUPERNATURAL was, along with John Krasinski, top choices for Captain America. Bryan Singer was insistent on Jude Law playing Superman. Emily Blunt was cast as Black Widow, but she had an obligation to Fox and had to pull out. Tom Cruise tried making IRON MAN for years. Viggo Mortenson auditioned for Wolverine at one point, as did Danzig. Angela Basset priced herself out of playing Storm. loving Michael Jackson approached Fox about him playing Professor X. Most famously should've been Dougray Scott as Wolverine but he got in a motorbike crash on MI2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2018 22:27
|
|