|
Aphrodite posted:Most soundtracks are not diegetic. Much of Guardians' soundtrack isn't even diegetic even if all those songs are on Peter's cassette. Also on that note, while I've always enjoyed Guardians 1 at about the same level, I keep liking Vol. 2 more and more with every rewatch. I suspect a lot of people here have seen Lindsay Ellis' video on it, but if you haven't, I recommend it. She does a nice job of breaking down the themes and emotional core of the movie, and really got me to appreciate a lot more what Gunn and the writers were going for.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I know it's over thinking it but Fury should have had the radio in his own car locked down. Nothing but smooth jazz and new jack swing on those long car rides. In a thread that often has wrong opinions I think this is the wrongest one I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Sgt. Politeness posted:I know it's over thinking it but Fury should have had the radio in his own car locked down. Nothing but smooth jazz and new jack swing on those long car rides. When the woman who can shoot explosions out of her hands wants to listen to the rock station you let her listen to the rock station.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:The first avenger in alphabetical order is Ant-man SHIELD was using Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne as an elite task force in the mid 80s. Possibly Nick Fury didn't have the proper clearance to know about this in Captain Marvel. The idea for the Avengers in everything but name was created by Peggy Carter and Howard Stark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:SHIELD was using Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne as an elite task force in the mid 80s. Hank and Janet were basically enhanced spies, though. They weren't in any position to confront a planet-wide existential crisis. Neither was Scott until he figured out how to embiggen himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Yeah they were basically Widow and Hawkeye of the 80s. One of them had to 'die' to stop 1 missile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:In a thread that often has wrong opinions I think this is the wrongest one I've seen. Hey man my parents were younger and more hip than Fury in the 90s and they listened to V98.7 Smooth Jazz and R&B. That was the station that played Sade so don't hate. Though I concede that Fury is an established Motown man and probably doesn't listen to too much music that came out post 70s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Yeah they were basically Widow and Hawkeye of the 80s. I mean, Tony Stark had to 'die' to stop a missile too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:I mean, Tony Stark had to 'die' to stop a missile too! He brute forced his through an alien portal into the furthest reaches of space, though, so...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:He brute forced his through an alien portal into the furthest reaches of space, though, so... Hey man, I'm just saying, if the "Can't redirect one doomsday weapon without nearly dying" test is going to be the bar for an Avenger, then Tony Stark and Steve Rogers gotta start hitting the gym.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:The thing I rolled my eyes at was the getting up if the ground montage(from the trailers). It felt like such superficial marketable "feminism". I wasn't going to say anything about it but my wife turned to me and said the same thing and she's like an academically published feminist so now I feel fine agreeing with that criticism. It was like a Nike commercial. You know extending this thought I didn't especially like how they nerfed this supposedly badass spy guy into being comedic relief. Alot of the mystique was melted away in this movie for Nick Fury to slot in as the goofy black sidekick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:Hey man, I'm just saying, if the "Can't redirect one doomsday weapon without nearly dying" test is going to be the bar for an Avenger, then Tony Stark and Steve Rogers gotta start hitting the gym. Captain Marvel shows the culmination of the story arc of the most dangerous thing in the MCU - really big missiles: Remember that Tony Stark getting hurt by a missile was the first thing in Iron Man Hydra's missiles in Captain America the first Avenger Then you've got Iron Man getting almost stranded in space because of a missile in Avengers Then the missile in Antman and the Wasp Any time a superhero has to fight missiles things go bad, except Captain Marvel is actually strong vs missiles. thanks, please like and subscribe
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Captain Marvel shows the culmination of the story arc of the most dangerous thing in the MCU - really big missiles: The power creep on the Avengers is getting ridiculous to the point where big missiles aren't really dangerous anymore. MCU needs to get this under control imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:The power creep on the Avengers is getting ridiculous to the point where big missiles aren't really dangerous anymore. MCU needs to get this under control imo. Yeah, after Cap beat Perfect Cell it's kind of hard to make a new threat believable
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You know extending this thought I didn't especially like how they nerfed this supposedly badass spy guy into being comedic relief. Alot of the mystique was melted away in this movie for Nick Fury to slot in as the goofy black sidekick. I'm pretty sure at this point 'black sidekick' has been noticed as an ongoing problem in the MCU and hopefully they'll do something about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Black Panther was them doing something about it. Anyway Nick Fury's mystique as the "inscrutable yet wise badass government guy operating outside the law keeping everything secret from the proles for their own good" is rather overrated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
If I recall correctly The First Avenger secondary title was a fallback in case the title Captain America wouldn't play internationally. I remember hearing a lot about that as a concern when the first film was being released, though it ended up not really being an issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Tbh im glad we got something different with fury than the same sarcastic hardass we've had for ten years already Plus it kinda makes sense from a character progression standpoint that having to lead shield would make him that way instead just always being so one note
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
I'm for anything that lets Sam Jackson have as much fun with a role as he did in CM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
You know, I just realized that the inspiration for the thread title was correct. The Skrulls were not the enemy, and, in fact misogynistic assholes were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:I rewatched the Guardians movies in the past couple days and as far as I could tell, there's only two songs that aren't explicitly diegetic (i.e. we either hear it playing diegetically at some point, or we see a shot of the tape playing): Cherry Bomb in 1 and The Chain in 2. I mean, all of the other songs also have a point where they cut to a soundtrack version, if that's what you mean, but I still thought it was a nice touch on Gunn's part to give almost all of the soundtrack that in-universe basis at some point. Genuine question about diegetic. Let's use Come and Get Your Love in Guardians 1 as an example. We're clearly hearing it the same time as Peter, we see him switch the tape on and he sings along real time. But we hear it as a soundtrack. Is this diegetic? Or would we literally have to hear it crackling through Peters Walkman?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You know extending this thought I didn't especially like how they nerfed this supposedly badass spy guy into being comedic relief. Alot of the mystique was melted away in this movie for Nick Fury to slot in as the goofy black sidekick. No, they have to bring in the X-Men before they can reveal that Fury was Mystique this whole time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
CityMidnightJunky posted:Genuine question about diegetic. Let's use Come and Get Your Love in Guardians 1 as an example. We're clearly hearing it the same time as Peter, we see him switch the tape on and he sings along real time. But we hear it as a soundtrack. Is this diegetic? Or would we literally have to hear it crackling through Peters Walkman? It’s diegetic. Diegetic doesn’t necessarily mean you’re hearing it exactly as the characters are, just that there’s an in-film reason for that music, and the characters are aware of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Those videos are well argued. I just wish that he, and a lot of youtubers in general, would quit it with the skits and framing devices. They are always the most skip worthy section of the videos. Listened to both vids, and other than the skits, he does make some good points about Marvel's visuals and pre-vfx and vfx interchangeability (which might explain my disconnection with the ending of Captain Marvel, but I do disagree that Whedon was exceptionally gifted visually or characterization-wise (tho I do agree the battle of NY being a high point in Marvel action). The lack of change and seeming consequence is pretty true tho, since these things come out sequentially every couple years in each different property, which doesn't allow a new status quo to be established before changing it. But I also think there wasn't enough focus on the characterization and writing found in these movies, which are generally competent to excellent especially compared to other superhero franchises until very recently. And also the general weirdness and oddity of these movies in the last couple of years. e: also after listening to his other video about music bios, which also had some good points, it does seem he has the same flaw that anyone who would take the insane amount of time to make these videos seem to share, thinking the stories they have in their heads would be so much better than what is already on the screen. Eh, I dunno about that.... Shageletic fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:But I also think there wasn't enough focus on the characterization and writing found in these movies, which are generally competent to excellent especially compared to other superhero franchises until very recently. And also the general weirdness and oddity of these movies in the last couple of years. Part of the problem is that they have too drat many characters and not enough time to devote to them. Don't get me wrong, I like Anthony Mackie as Falcon, but… did he need to be in Winter Soldier, or would they have been better off using the time to add depth to Black Widow? As it is, we have another character that we don't really know anything about. Same with Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, Rhodey (seriously, dude must be struggling with some serious poo poo since his injury but we don't see any of it). Spider-Man's dusting hurt like hell because we've spent a bunch of time with him and we knew exactly what was going through his mind as he faded (and also Tom Holland's performance was fantastic). Falcon just dissolves. The DCEU films have this issue too but it's much more significant because it's not just the side characters we don't know or understand, it's the main ones. Ok, so Snyder's Superman is willing to kill, but why? Snyder's Batman uses guns and brands criminals, but why? Their origin stories are very similar, if not the same, to the previous versions we're used to, so why are they so different? Without knowing why, it's just confusing and offputting because you spend the film trying to reconcile this different version of the hero with the one you're expecting to see with no explanation why they arent and it doesn't work. asecondduck fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:e: also after listening to his other video about music bios, which also had some good points, it does seem he has the same flaw that anyone who would take the insane amount of time to make these videos seem to share, thinking the stories they have in their heads would be so much better than what is already on the screen. Eh, I dunno about that.... I think that can be a hard needle to thread. Any form of criticism requires a value judgement with the implicit notion that there are other alternatives that the artist could have taken. I think it can be sometimes hard to make a criticism without at least implying a different version, but there is a line, and I think criticism where it's just "it would have been better if" can be tiresome. I think Willems re-writing Winter Soldier veers too much into that territory, but he rights the ship later by using Spider-Man 2 as a comparison, because using another film and explaining where it succeeds is I feel a better method of highlighting another film's shortcomings. Karloff fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
I think a lot of people's complaints about the MCU generally boils down to the idea that a particular scene or arc or character doesn't hit the possible maximum emotional level that it could. This comes up time and again. I think a lot of these people are missing something here and what they're missing is that not everything can be amped up 100% of the time and make a successful franchise like the MCU - or often a successful film. In the scene for example where Spiderman gets dusted, it's not really possible for a filmmaker to make you feel the same thing about every other character. And if it was it wouldn't really be desirable given that this scene is already pretty heavy. There's a big picture to a lot of decisions. If Winter Soldier cut Falcon and did a bunch of Black Widow characterisation, it would mean that come Age of Ultron people who haven't seen Winter Soldier would be utterly adrift on BW's changes. I don't buy the argument that phase one did characterisation better than later phases. Remember that Rhodey is a phase one character. And nowadays we have the new Peter Parker and Black Panther. If I was to pick between Shuri and Iron Man 1 Rhodey I know who I would pick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
A movie doesn't have to make you care about side characters as much. That's why they're side characters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I think a lot of these people are missing something here and what they're missing is that not everything can be amped up 100% of the time and make a successful franchise like the MCU - or often a successful film. In the scene for example where Spiderman gets dusted, it's not really possible for a filmmaker to make you feel the same thing about every other character. And if it was it wouldn't really be desirable given that this scene is already pretty heavy. Fangz posted:There's a big picture to a lot of decisions. If Winter Soldier cut Falcon and did a bunch of Black Widow characterisation, it would mean that come Age of Ultron people who haven't seen Winter Soldier would be utterly adrift on BW's changes.  I'm mostly joking but Marvel films has assumed the audience has seen the previous films since, I dunno, The Avengers. Fangz posted:I don't buy the argument that phase one did characterisation better than later phases. Remember that Rhodey is a phase one character. And nowadays we have the new Peter Parker and Black Panther. If I was to pick between Shuri and Iron Man 1 Rhodey I know who I would pick. There is potential for a great War Machine/Bucky team up movie, the two have a lot of commonality that could be really interesting to explore but I don't really see that film getting greenlit. Maybe one of those Disney + limited series like they're doing with Loki, Cheadle's done TV at least once. Again, as freaking awesome as it is to see so, so many Marvel characters, it's unfortunate that they're not getting the exploration they deserve. I guess it'll probably get a little better from here (I expect them to kill off most, if not all, of the main Avengers in Endgame) but on the other hand Disney's getting FF and X-Men back so we're probably just gonna keep getting more and more characters instead of further development of their established ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
I can't really say that the black characters are probably something we could've done without is something I would agree with Also the Spider-Man dusting scene was improvised by Tom
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
I still hope for Falcon to become the new Captain America in which case we will get a film to fill in any gaps in his character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
site posted:I can't really say that the black characters are probably something we could've done without is something I would agree with I think it's okay, in a cinematic universe that has several awesome black characters, to suggest the removal of one underdeveloped character who happens to be black. I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
I feel like the MCU/Avengers thing is played out and gonna be really hard to do anything interesting with moving forward. Only thing I can see them doing is a "this person was really a Skrull the whole time!" and the continuity is going to collapse under its own weight, much like the comics. Maybe they can work on Spiderman some more and gently caress around with X-Men and FF but I'm kind of of Marveled out can't remember the last time I was hyped for a superhero movie. That said, I am excited for Shazam but only because it looks so tonally different form the things we've gotten the last 3 to 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
teagone posted:I personally agree with a lot of what the guy has to say and have echo'd similar sentiments elsewhere for some time, but he thinks Whedon is some kind of visionary filmmaker and that's a hard disagree on my end lol. But otherwise, so far the videos were a good watch. It's a three part series I believe. Here are the first two Honestly, I think he's right in his essential argument that Whedon is responsible for a lot of the success of the original Avengers movie, and that that was a lot more difficult of a task to pull off at the time than it now looks in retrospect. Avengers had to do an enormous amount of initial heavy lifting; functionally introduce three new superheroes (BW and Hawkeye appeared in previous marvel films for blink-and-you'll-miss-them values of 'appeared', but Avengers is where they got characterization), two of which weren't well know to non-comics audiences, and get three other superheroes who have never interacted in the same room together, while at the same time being an actual movie with an act structure and a runtime under three hours. And he did it successfully by relying on "Whedonisms"; quippy little bits of punchy dialogue that make the audience laugh but also do double duty of expressing characterization or highlighting a theme. When everyone always only speaks in Whedonisms, it's annoying, but in the short term they do a good job of pinning an iconic aspect of a character down in a very memorable way: "I understood that reference", or "I'm always angry", or even just "We have a Hulk", which is a funny rejoinder, but also Tony Stark, massive egotistical narcissist, referring to himself as part of a "we" for the first time in, like, ever. It's iconic, memorable, and fast, which means you can smash a huge cast together in the same film without it getting tedious. People take issue with the MCU formula being shallow movies composed of mostly quips -- even though, between Black Panther, Infinity War, and Captain Marvel, it's mostly not these days -- but Avengers, with its ballooning cast and messy cinematic infrastructure, was exactly the right place and time to be mostly quips, and it worked really well. Avengers 2, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I feel like the MCU/Avengers thing is played out and gonna be really hard to do anything interesting with moving forward. Only thing I can see them doing is a "this person was really a Skrull the whole time!" and the continuity is going to collapse under its own weight, much like the comics. Maybe they can work on Spiderman some more and gently caress around with X-Men and FF but I'm kind of of Marveled out can't remember the last time I was hyped for a superhero movie. The superhero movie I was most excited for, and which totally lived up to the hype, was Into The Spider-Verse. I think there's plenty of places for superhero movies to go, they just need to be more experimental.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Once Endgame is out, I think it would be wisest for the MCU to wind things down a bit and focus on solo films for a while before doing something big. The scale of Infinity War/Endgame goes into reality tearing cosmic wackiness, I'm not sure they can possible go "bigger" without it coming off as a bit silly at this point. It might even be cool if they just took a year off, just a little time for more of a taste to build up. I'm a fan of what they've done, but the shared universe thing is both a tremendous advantage and a millstone around the neck. On the one hand, it has allowed them to do riskier things with their films - giving them explicit political points of view, courting audiences that Hollywood has traditionally ignored - because they know that whatever character they choose to adapt, wide audiences will definitely turn up because it might have clues to the next crossover or whatever. It's a sort of marketing snowball effect. But, on the other hand, the longer it goes the more dense the continuity becomes and the more concessions will need to be made for any individual film to fit into an increasingly complicated internal mythology. Karloff fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
^^^^I don't mind the cosmic stuff too much but I prefer the street level Netflix stuff more.^^^ Maybe make some films not tied to continuity or set a few in different eras. A Fantastic Four period piece might be good or a fresh look at late 70's/early 80's X-Men. Move a few films into the future like they did with Logan or just work on Spiderman and the SInister Six or something. I don't know. Bummed out we'll never get a Netflix Moon Knight. ImpAtom posted:The superhero movie I was most excited for, and which totally lived up to the hype, was Into The Spider-Verse. I think there's plenty of places for superhero movies to go, they just need to be more experimental. Good point. Spider Verse was really fun. I didn't love it was much as some people but at least it stayed with me after I saw it. I still haven't seen Black Panther and the urgency to see an of this stuff just isn't there for me anymore. I think the last one I was really hyped for was Dr. Strange and the Netflix Daredevil . Agree they need to do something different but I'm not sure what that might be given the whole "half the universe died" stakes. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Mar 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Too bad, it's going to be Dark Phoenix Again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:People take issue with the MCU formula being shallow movies composed of mostly quips -- even though, between Black Panther, Infinity War, and Captain Marvel, it's mostly not these days -- but Avengers, with its ballooning cast and messy cinematic infrastructure, was exactly the right place and time to be mostly quips, and it worked really well. It had always been there in Whedon's stuff, but I think AoU is when it became super obvious just how unwilling he was to let a dramatic moment hang before undercutting it with, to quote Dwight Schrute cosplaying as Jim Halpert, "Neh-eh, little comment."
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Too bad, it's going to be Dark Phoenix Again. Another good point. I'm worried they're gonna start mining the 90's material (and they've already started with Venom, Deadpool) now that those are entering the realm of nostalgia. IN a way, I think DC is in a better place because moving forward they can do whatever they want and no one care about their lovely shared universe at all. Shazam looks cool, Plastic Man could be a hoot, WW2 will probably do well, Aquaman seemed to fair well and they've still got Batman and Superman to revisit whenever they want. They can take another shot at Green Lantern and whatever they're doing with Flash. Then again, they're gonna do Suicide Squad 2 and multiple Joker movies. Hell, just do a 2 part Kingdom Come movie and say gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:56
|
|