Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Megillah Gorilla
Sep 22, 2003

If only all of life's problems could be solved by smoking a professor of ancient evil texts.



Bread Liar

Armacham posted:

WW84 follows the DC superhero movie tradition of the villains being played by super talented actors, while the lead is hot garbage.

Ever single person in this image is an incredibly talented actor*. Except one.

Guess who was the star of the show.







* Except the white guy on the right, he was kinda meh.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Niric
Jul 23, 2008

Armacham posted:

WW84 follows the DC superhero movie tradition of the villains being played by super talented actors, while the lead is hot garbage.

Gordon Shumway
Jan 21, 2008

WW84: why is it that when Diana wishes that Steve is back, his consciousness ends up in some random dude, but when other people wish for things, they magically appear? Why couldn't Steve just magically come back as himself? It felt like they were setting up some moral dilemma of Diana effectively killing the poor random dude so that Steve could live but they just never brought up that fact again after she first sees him.

Torquemada
Oct 21, 2010

Drei Gläser

Strom Cuzewon posted:

^^^ Oh god there's another?


The good one has Deborah Anne Woll. The bad one has a guy who looks like a low budget Logan Marshall-Green (the low-budget Tom Hardy)

Well now I want a remake of all three, one starring Tom Hardy, one with Logan Marshall Green and one with Jai Courteney. Ed Skrein needs to play a villain in all of them.

Ignite Memories
Feb 27, 2005

Gordon Shumway posted:

WW84: why is it that when Diana wishes that Steve is back, his consciousness ends up in some random dude, but when other people wish for things, they magically appear? Why couldn't Steve just magically come back as himself? It felt like they were setting up some moral dilemma of Diana effectively killing the poor random dude so that Steve could live but they just never brought up that fact again after she first sees him.

Because she also wished he was taller and a brunette

BaldDwarfOnPCP
Jun 26, 2019

by Pragmatica
Everyone wanted to take their wishes back because they wished for stupid and thoughtless poo poo off the top of their heads and no one believed it would work.

Who hasn't said "man I wish my SO would just die already." Big regret when the djinn grants all of their wishes.

Djinn's are like that, you get what you ask for and instant regret.

Perestroika
Apr 8, 2010

So I just got around to watching Tenet and... eeeh. I figure enough nitpicking about the time travel stuff has been done already, so I'll just stick to my main beef of the overall story motivation. First of all, "the whole world could be destroyed" is just kind of mediocre in general. If your stakes are so large they can easily end up feeling unreal and impersonal with no real emotional impact, which very much was the case here. It also very much did not help that the how of this threat was very artificial and intangible, and the why was only revealed like 5 minutes before the end.

In general it felt like the movie made a point of being deliberately opaque, artificially hiding information from the audience just so it could have "clever" reveals later on. At one point you have the protagonist outright asking another character why they didn't fill him (and by extension the audience) in on important information earlier, and the response pretty much boils down to "cause I didn't feel like it". Everyone is constantly incredibly secretive about everything, but the movie only explains the necessity of the secrecy a couple of offhand sentences. It's a very "telling instead of showing" measure that just makes it feel more contrived.

Last but not least, is it just me or is Nolan kinda bad at directing action? The big climax was mostly just a bunch of interchangeable extras running in circles shooting at nothing while explosions go off in the background. The smaller-scale action sequences aren't much better, often filmed overly close with aggressive cutting.

Len
Jan 21, 2008

Pouches, bandages, shoulderpad, cyber-eye...

Bitchin'!


Another holiday weekend and Monster Hunter still is theaters only.

Pope Corky the IX
Dec 18, 2006

What are you looking at?
Okay, I get why the logo for the movie Ghostbusters II is the ghost holding up two fingers. But why is the logo in the movie doing the same thing?

Nostradingus
Jul 13, 2009

Len posted:

Another holiday weekend and Monster Hunter still is theaters only.

I don't think you're missing out on much.

SiKboy
Oct 28, 2007

Oh no!😱

Pope Corky the IX posted:

Okay, I get why the logo for the movie Ghostbusters II is the ghost holding up two fingers. But why is the logo in the movie doing the same thing?

Because they are 2 ghostbuster 4 u, obviously.

Stupid_Sexy_Flander
Mar 14, 2007

Is a man not entitled to the haw of his maw?
Grimey Drawer

Perestroika posted:

So I just got around to watching Tenet and... eeeh. I figure enough nitpicking about the time travel stuff has been done already, so I'll just stick to my main beef of the overall story motivation. First of all, "the whole world could be destroyed" is just kind of mediocre in general. If your stakes are so large they can easily end up feeling unreal and impersonal with no real emotional impact, which very much was the case here. It also very much did not help that the how of this threat was very artificial and intangible, and the why was only revealed like 5 minutes before the end.

In general it felt like the movie made a point of being deliberately opaque, artificially hiding information from the audience just so it could have "clever" reveals later on. At one point you have the protagonist outright asking another character why they didn't fill him (and by extension the audience) in on important information earlier, and the response pretty much boils down to "cause I didn't feel like it". Everyone is constantly incredibly secretive about everything, but the movie only explains the necessity of the secrecy a couple of offhand sentences. It's a very "telling instead of showing" measure that just makes it feel more contrived.

Last but not least, is it just me or is Nolan kinda bad at directing action? The big climax was mostly just a bunch of interchangeable extras running in circles shooting at nothing while explosions go off in the background. The smaller-scale action sequences aren't much better, often filmed overly close with aggressive cutting.

Yea the movie kinda sucked. It did have that dude getting walled up in the climax fight though, which was pretty horrifying to think about.

Len
Jan 21, 2008

Pouches, bandages, shoulderpad, cyber-eye...

Bitchin'!


Nostradingus posted:

I don't think you're missing out on much.

It has monsters and it has big swords it's exactly what I'm expecting

Armacham
Mar 3, 2007

Then brothers in war, to the skirmish must we hence! Shall we hence?

Sorry, I meant RECENT DC. Michael Keaton is clearly above all reproach.

Morpheus
Apr 18, 2008

My favourite little monsters

Len posted:

It has monsters and it has big swords it's exactly what I'm expecting

I'm with you there. I'm expecting Resident-Evil-level stupidity but with some Tony Jaa and giant swords, plus Diabolos is in there somewhere. I'm going to be talking over it with friends (remotely) as we point out how terrible it is.

Yngwie Mangosteen
Aug 23, 2007

Perestroika posted:

is Nolan kinda bad at directing

Yes that’s correct. People that aren’t studio execs have known that for years.

Armacham
Mar 3, 2007

Then brothers in war, to the skirmish must we hence! Shall we hence?

Captain Monkey posted:

Yes that’s correct. People that aren’t studio execs have known that for years.

His sound mixing is so loving awful

Wasabi the J
Jan 23, 2008

MOM WAS RIGHT
I liked most of his movies but they've been getting worse in the sound department every year.

Tenet was just nauseating to follow.

It was the most "oh who gives a poo poo" I ever felt during a final battle.

Android Apocalypse
Apr 28, 2009

The future is
AUTOMATED
and you are
OBSOLETE

Illegal Hen
The fact Nolan had characters wear masks for chunks of Tenet felt like a particular "gently caress You" to the audience & his critics regarding sound design.

Inspector Gesicht
Oct 26, 2012

500 Zeus a body.


I can picture Nolan's next movie, "Muff". The executives want a different name but he overrules them.

Guys in sharp-dressed suits plan a heist next a loud construction site, a man with a thick accent issues a threat the moment a train comes into station, Cillian Murphy gets another bag stuffed on his head

Megillah Gorilla
Sep 22, 2003

If only all of life's problems could be solved by smoking a professor of ancient evil texts.



Bread Liar

Armacham posted:

His sound mixing is so loving awful

Movies need sliders for speech, music and sound effects like games do.

Memento
Aug 25, 2009


Bleak Gremlin

Megillah Gorilla posted:

Movies need sliders for speech, music and sound effects like games do.

And when you get a bunch of directors railing against the bastardisation of their "artistic vision" if you introduce this, you know which ones you can stop bothering with from then on.

bitterandtwisted
Sep 4, 2006




In Soul when Joe's soul gets stuck in the cat, we see the cat's soul heading to the Great Beyond, and I was thinking "aw, you killed the cat you jerk", but when Joe leaves the cat's body, the cat is just fine. Did the cat go to heaven? Was it ripped out of heaven? :iiam:

Yngwie Mangosteen
Aug 23, 2007

bitterandtwisted posted:

In Soul when Joe's soul gets stuck in the cat, we see the cat's soul heading to the Great Beyond, and I was thinking "aw, you killed the cat you jerk", but then we Joe leaves the cat's body, the cat is just fine. Did the cat go to heaven? Was it ripped out of heaven? :iiam:

Purrrrgatory

bitterandtwisted
Sep 4, 2006





Bravo

Tunicate
May 15, 2012

bitterandtwisted posted:

In Soul when Joe's soul gets stuck in the cat, we see the cat's soul heading to the Great Beyond, and I was thinking "aw, you killed the cat you jerk", but when Joe leaves the cat's body, the cat is just fine. Did the cat go to heaven? Was it ripped out of heaven? :iiam:

it still has 8 more lives it's fine

Der Kyhe
Jun 25, 2008

bitterandtwisted posted:

In Soul when Joe's soul gets stuck in the cat, we see the cat's soul heading to the Great Beyond, and I was thinking "aw, you killed the cat you jerk", but when Joe leaves the cat's body, the cat is just fine. Did the cat go to heaven? Was it ripped out of heaven? :iiam:

Cats are assholes so going without soul and being fine is system working as intended.

IShallRiseAgain
Sep 12, 2008

Well ain't that precious?

bitterandtwisted posted:

In Soul when Joe's soul gets stuck in the cat, we see the cat's soul heading to the Great Beyond, and I was thinking "aw, you killed the cat you jerk", but when Joe leaves the cat's body, the cat is just fine. Did the cat go to heaven? Was it ripped out of heaven? :iiam:

The cat is alive as a soulless abomination. Its going to be a Pet Sematary situation.

Mauser
Dec 16, 2003

How did I even get here, son?!
Why doesn't Elrond just murder Isildur in Mt. Doom and throw the ring in the fire?

Also, prior to the absolute most terrifying scene in LOTR, during Bilbo's first reunion with Frodo, Bilbo definitely gives him a smile while Frodo is looking at the book and it's a smile without the eyes, like a real mean smile.

Memento
Aug 25, 2009


Bleak Gremlin

Mauser posted:

Why doesn't Elrond just murder Isildur in Mt. Doom and throw the ring in the fire?

Well Isildur has the ring, that would probably make him pretty hard to kill.

Also, if Elrond did kill him and picked the ring up to toss it, who's to say he wouldn't then go all "hmm, yes, why not me? Surely I could wield it for good, I'm Elrond of Rivendell!"

No one can throw it in, everyone who gets to that point doesn't have it in them to do it, and it's only Gollum biting Frodo's fingats off and slipping over the edge in the rapture of finally getting it back that destroys it.

Antivehicular
Dec 30, 2011


I wanna sing one for the cars
That are right now headed silent down the highway
And it's dark and there is nobody driving And something has got to give

Yeah, it's explicitly one of Tolkien's themes in the books (and I don't think completely expressed in the films) that the corruptive power of the Ring is always going to overpower individual intent to destroy it, however strong. (I believe this is a metaphor for a Catholic theological idea about salvation being impossible by individual virtue, but I don't remember exactly.) The Ring ultimately only being destroyed due to chaos and coincidence is definitely part of the point.

rydiafan
Mar 17, 2009



And this corruption would overtake any sentient being, including the loving eagles, so shut up about that already.

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

Don't you tell me my business again.

Der Kyhe posted:

Cats are assholes so going without soul and being fine is system working as intended.

rear end Souls?

christmas boots
Oct 15, 2012

To these sing-alongs 🎤of siren 🧜🏻‍♀️songs
To oohs😮 to ahhs😱 to 👏big👏applause👏
With all of my 😡anger I scream🤬 and shout📢
🇺🇸America🦅, I love you 🥰but you're freaking 💦me 😳out
Biscuit Hider
IIRC Tolkien did come up what a what-if scenario about what might have happened if Smeagol’s redemption stuck instead of backsliding and it ends with him realizing he’d never be able to part with the ring and jumping into the volcano with it instead

Keromaru5
Dec 28, 2012

Pictured: The Wolf Of Gubbio (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

rydiafan posted:

And this corruption would overtake any sentient being, including the loving eagles, so shut up about that already.
Don't be silly. Surely no harm could possibly come from handing the Ring over to a race of giant sentient flying dinosaurs with huge claws and incredible eyesight.

Also: Elrond and Isildur just fought together in a years-long war to defeat the second-greatest threat the world had ever known. One's not going to just casually murder the other just because he's acting funny over a piece of jewelry. Even Boromir got to have a heroic death trying to protect Merry and Pippin after he tried to take the Ring from Frodo.

yeah I eat ass
Mar 14, 2005

only people who enjoy my posting can replace this avatar
what if they just went to a different volcano

SiKboy
Oct 28, 2007

Oh no!😱

yeah I eat rear end posted:

what if they just went to a different volcano

Elrond posted:

The Ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade.

rydiafan
Mar 17, 2009



So you think the ring would float in normal lava? Because if it sinks, but isn't unmade, it's still gonna be pretty unretrievable.

Memento
Aug 25, 2009


Bleak Gremlin

rydiafan posted:

So you think the ring would float in normal lava? Because if it sinks, but isn't unmade, it's still gonna be pretty unretrievable.

Sauron is patient. Lava turns into rock, weathers into sediments, gets washed up in a stream, someone will find it.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Jedit
Dec 10, 2011

Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Mauser posted:

Why doesn't Elrond just murder Isildur in Mt. Doom and throw the ring in the fire?

Because if you take the One Ring by force, even if only to destroy it, then you already want it too much to throw it away. That's why Frodo had to be the Ringbearer - he's the only person to ever acquire the One Ring without desiring it for any purpose.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply