|
CelticPredator posted:I still don't get that meme. Cars?
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
More Valerian peeks Luc Besson posted:Meeting in space....  Luc Besson posted:Indian delegation
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Agreed I liked the Superman exiling himself scene better in Watchmen. And Batman's dream sequences were better in Sucker Punch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
site posted:tbh I expected ant man to be total crap but after everyone saw it and said it was actually good, I checked it out and enjoyed it a lot. Ant-Man and Guardians were my sure-fire flops and then lol nope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
X-O posted:I believe that Man of Steel is a mostly beautiful movie that I really enjoyed on most levels. I also believe that Batman v Superman is a mostly beautiful movie that I did not enjoy much at all. It's almost as if the beauty of the film is largely inconsequential if the story is largely bad. You nailed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Yeah same. I liked the cute ants and was sad when one died  CelticPredator posted:I don't know when they'll upload the clip, but Double Toasted had C. Robert Cargil (Carlye, a regular on their Spill.com days) come on a do an interview about working on Marvel (he's writing Doctor Strange) and it's good. achillesforever6 fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Alehkhs posted:More Valerian peeks As someone who holds The Fifth Element as my favorite film, I am so glad you let me know about this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
I just finished Iron Man 3 again, the first time I've seen it since it premiered, and god that movie is such a murky mess of ideas that don't gel at all. Iron Man 2 gets all the hatred, but at least it has a clear villain with clear motivations over a billion different baddies and themes that run at cross purposes to each other. IM3's like four different movies all at once and none of them are explored enough to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
It's actually one movie and it's pretty clear and good. And it's also a Shane Black movie, which owns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
There are henchman that work for the main bad guy. Very complex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I just finished Iron Man 3 again, the first time I've seen it since it premiered, and god that movie is such a murky mess of ideas that don't gel at all. What? Iron Man 3 has a clear villain and all the themes are basically meshed together quite well. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. Iron Man 3 is a movie-long criticism of Tony Stark and every villain and almost every plotline is a reflection of that and his inability to grow up and mature. It retroactively paints IM1 and 2 as the actions of a manchild struggling to deal with his personal issues and forces him into a situation where those personal issues explode in his face both metaphorically and literally. Killian is effectively a reflection of Tony Stark. (As most IM villains are.) He's the chance Tony had to do good that he let slip through his fingers because he was too busy trying to get laid. He's also Tony Stark as he used to be, someone who has access to an amazing technology and can only think of profit and self-gain. He even is competing for Tony's love interest because it isn't subtle. Every other villain in the movie is an extension of that. He's both a rival and a counterpart to Tony. The Mandarin is a criticism of Tony Stark in IM1 and 2 in addition to a criticism of the comic book villain. He is a cartoonish racist supervillain who Tony is utterly sure he can beat up and kick his rear end because he's just a lousy terrorist. Except, of course, it turns out he isn't, he's just a tool created by Bizarro Tony Stark to be a convenient tool to justify selling more weapons and Tony wasn't actually thinking of underlying causes or caring about consequences, he just wanted to kill the bad guy. Especially considering the time came out that's a drat relevant story and the Mandarin's similarities to Osama Bin Ladin are entirely intentional. Every single plot is about Tony and his flaws, including the plot where he spends time literally talking to a child and emphasizing that his thoughts and actions are basically on that level. IM3 explicitly treats the Iron Man suit as a giant action figure (in Tony's mind) that he plays with in order to avoid having to grow up and deal with the reality of the world. At the end he discovers that his giant action figure can't actually do anything and he needs to be saved by his girlfriend who is an all-together more adult individual than he is. (And literally empowered by the adult thing he could be doing instead of the child's thing he clings to.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Iron Man 2 gets all the hatred, but at least it has a clear villain with clear motivations over a billion different baddies and themes that run at cross purposes to each other. IM3's like four different movies all at once and none of them are explored enough to work. Be thankful the useless subplot about his childhood was cut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Tony Stark has trauma from superheroics and a British actor is pretending to be a terrorist and a businessman is going to control the White House because he can fix the Vice President's daughter's legs. The dialogue at least moves the movie so that you don't notice how confused it is. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Tony Stark has trauma from superheroics and a British actor is pretending to be a terrorist and a businessman is going to control the White House because he can give the Vice President's daughter a super-advanced prosthetic. I guess you missed the part where the evil villain spells out his master plan for the audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
The only thing I hate about IM3 is if that's the only time we see AIM in the MCU
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:The only thing I hate about IM3 is if that's the only time we see AIM in the MCU Heh, same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
The big final fight doesn't focus enough on anything either. There's a massive battle between fire people and Iron Man suits going on and all you really ever see is suits flying into people in the background. I would think the whole battle was designed by the VFX teams as one continuous thing though, viewing that that would have made a cool special feature on a home release.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Like there's so many things that are pointless, like how Tony's PTSD is a huge paralyzing issue until the plot calls for him not to have PTSD in which case it mysteriously disappears, or how it's literally never ever ever explained or justified why all the war vets with lava powers decide to work for Guy Pierce. Like ever. At all. They just do. There's no logical reason they would. The Mandarin stuff was pointless, went nowhere, and turning him into a glorified MacGuffin was ballsy but ended up feeling like a huge time waster. AIM was such a goddamn pointless and ineffectual organization and so unmemorable I literally forgot that they were introduced in this film. Fixing his core was straight-up dumb, and Pepper feels completely pointless in the movie besides someone that Tony has to protect. The female character whose name I forgot being suddenly killed off for no reason has her face turn not built to at all. As other people mentioned, Iron Man 3 is a fantastic first third of a movie, when it's trying to be reactive to and a commentary on Tony Stark, and the way they tied it to Avengers 1 was clever. Bringing in the PTSD angle was frankly brilliant, and showing how he's consumed by his paradoxical need to protect everyone while also his utter hatred for the physical act of being that shield foreshadows the stuff he does in AoU and, by extension, Civil War. It just collapses in on itself in the latter two thirds of the movie, when it randomly decides to be a whole bunch of other, different movies than an examination of Tony's PTSD and all of the interesting elements are given short shrift or removed for more explosions. The movie's a loving mess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
site posted:I guess you missed the part where the evil villain spells out his master plan for the audience. What is the thematic relationship between Tony Stark dealing with PTSD and an evil businessman he once humiliated taking over the White House?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Like there's so many things that are pointless, like how Tony's PTSD is a huge paralyzing issue until the plot calls for him not to have PTSD in which case it mysteriously disappears, or how it's literally never ever ever explained or justified why all the war vets with lava powers decide to work for Guy Pierce. Like ever. At all. They just do. There's no logical reason they would. The Mandarin stuff was pointless, went nowhere, and turning him into a glorified MacGuffin was ballsy but ended up feeling like a huge time waster. AIM was such a goddamn pointless and ineffectual organization and so unmemorable I literally forgot that they were introduced in this film. Fixing his core was straight-up dumb, and Pepper feels completely pointless in the movie besides someone that Tony has to protect. The female character whose name I forgot being suddenly killed off for no reason has her face turn not built to at all. ... Uh, what? Did you literally ignore plot points in the film? Like at bare minimum the reason why the war vets are working for Villian is explained onscreen and involves a combination of "they needed Extremis due to injuries" "they want superpowers" and "Extremis is unstable and once they have it he is the one who keeps them alive." Like holy poo poo you are literally complaining about things explained onscreen by characters. BravestOfTheLamps posted:What is the thematic relationship between Tony Stark dealing with PTSD and an evil businessman he once humiliated taking over the White House? The PTSD is Tony Stark dealing with the fact that he is facing huge and important things and he isn't mentally and emotionally prepared to deal with them. The evil businessman is one of his previous mistakes that he wasn't mentally and emotionally prepared to handle coming back to bite him in the rear end. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... Uh, what? Did you literally ignore plot points in the film? I assumed I did, which is why I watched it again. Nope, it's just that confused and meandering, and has that many disparate clashing tones. I mean, literally, Tony Stark is in the middle of a panic attack and the young kid he's supposed to relate to tells him to do the thing he's been doing the entire film up to that point which magically cures his PTSD, which never ever ever EVER gets brought up again. You know what would've been a good moment to bring it up again? The climax! Have him get a panic attack in the final fight, which he then has to work through in order to beat the villain. You know? Arcs? Completing them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:I mean, literally, Tony Stark is in the middle of a panic attack and the young kid he's supposed to relate to tells him to do the thing he's been doing the entire film up to that point which magically cures his PTSD, which never ever ever EVER gets brought up again. You know what would've been a good moment to bring it up again? The climax! Have him get a panic attack in the final fight, which he then has to work through in order to beat the villain. You know? Arcs? Completing them? ... So do you not actually get the thematic reasons behind Tony Stark's panic attack and just are viewing it as a literal condition he has?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Like at bare minimum the reason why the war vets are working for Villian is explained onscreen and involves a combination of "they needed Extremis due to injuries" "they want superpowers" and "Extremis is unstable and once they have it he is the one who keeps them alive." That never happens. I know, because I was expecting a moment where Guy Pierce holds them hostage or encourages them to fight for him or uses some cult-like, AIM-like "science run amok" reasoning to keep his soldiers in line. It never happens. We are introduced to the villains as war heroes, they get Extremis, and suddenly they become goons who just really like doing evil. That's it. There is zero explanation or motivation for their switch. At all. Ever. Have you actually seen the movie?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:That never happens. I know, because I was expecting a moment where Guy Pierce holds them hostage or encourages them to fight for him or uses some cult-like, AIM-like "science run amok" reasoning to keep his soldiers in line. It never happens. ... yes it does? It's in fact the literal entire plot point that Tony Stark is investigating? The fact that Extremis is unstable and causing them to explode is the actual reason for the suicide bombings? You may want to actually watch the movie instead of sulking and going "no, it's dumb and bad and wrong" when you're missing points explained onscreen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Here we go agaaaaaaain
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... So do you not actually get the thematic reasons behind Tony Stark's panic attack and just are viewing it as a literal condition he has? That's not how mental illnesses work. You can't just magically make yourself not have them, which beyond the bad physical construction of the movie is why I hated it so goddamn much. I used to think it was offensive shlock because the movie heavily implies that seeking treatment for disabilities is the act of a coward (notice how the war vets are the evil ones for daring to get treatment for things like missing limbs, and notice how Tony Stark is its hero by overcoming his disability via sheer force of will) , but as a constructed plot element it doesn't complete at all. Again, Tony Stark's PTSD is a problem until it isn't, at which point it's never ever ever brought up again. It's godawful storytelling and worse character work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:That never happens. I know, because I was expecting a moment where Guy Pierce holds them hostage or encourages them to fight for him or uses some cult-like, AIM-like "science run amok" reasoning to keep his soldiers in line. It never happens. We are introduced to the villains as war heroes, they get Extremis, and suddenly they become goons who just really like doing evil. That's it. There is zero explanation or motivation for their switch. At all. Ever. I assumed it was because this guy just gave them something that grew their limbs back and makes them super strong and hard to kill and keeps them supplied with that special gum and presumably pays them really well, so like all henchman they went with it. And it's not like all of the people who took extremis stayed at aim, the guy who blew up at the theater presumably didn't work for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
In the next movie he's in he makes a insane murder bot because of his PTSD. Vision induced or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:That's not how mental illnesses work. You can't just magically make yourself not have them, which beyond the bad physical construction of the movie is why I hated it so goddamn much. I used to think it was offensive shlock because the movie heavily implies that seeking treatment for disabilities is the act of a coward (notice how the war vets are the evil ones for daring to get treatment for things like missing limbs, and notice how Tony Stark is its hero by overcoming his disability via sheer force of will) , but as a constructed plot element it doesn't complete at all. Again, Tony Stark's PTSD is a problem until it isn't, at which point it's never ever ever brought up again. It's godawful storytelling and worse character work. That is not, in fact, what the film is saying at all and at no point does the film say someone is a coward for seeking treatment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... yes it does? It's in fact the literal entire plot point that Tony Stark is investigating? The fact that Extremis is unstable and causing them to explode is the actual reason for the suicide bombings? That doesn't explain why they fight for him. The reasoning you're implying is supposition at best and actively at cross purposes. YOu can't just say "they're encouraged and threatened and made to believe", those are three different loving reasons and none of them are displayed onscreen. It's fanfiction of what's onscreen in the film. In the film, as written, his goons have no reason for fighting for him. None. It's never explained or justified. gently caress, I woulda taken "Extremis turns you evil" and even that isn't the piss-poor excuse for why these ostensible heroes turned villainous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:That doesn't explain why they fight for him. The reasoning you're implying is supposition at best and actively at cross purposes. YOu can't just say "they're encouraged and threatened and made to believe", those are three different loving reasons and none of them are displayed onscreen. It's fanfiction of what's onscreen in the film. In the film, as written, his goons have no reason for fighting for him. None. It's never explained or justified. "So, the injections are administered periodically. Addiction will not be tolerated. And those who cannot regulate will be out from the programme. Once misfits, cripples...You are the next iteration of human evolution." Right there. loving explained onscreen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:That is not, in fact, what the film is saying at all and at no point does the film say someone is a coward for seeking treatment? The movie's villains are disabled vets who sought treatment for their disabilities and are now evil. The movie's villains are disabled vets who sought treatment for their disabilities and are now evil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Why assume veterans are heroes
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The PTSD is Tony Stark dealing with the fact that he is facing huge and important things and he isn't mentally and emotionally prepared to deal with them. The evil businessman is one of his previous mistakes that he wasn't mentally and emotionally prepared to handle coming back to bite him in the rear end. The conflict with Pierce doesn't actually involve PTSD. The movie also isn't about Stark redeeming himself for his past mistakes, even when that same conflict with Pierce would imply that. site posted:I assumed it was because this guy just gave them something that grew their limbs back and makes them super strong and hard to kill and keeps them supplied with that special gum and presumably pays them really well, so like all henchman they went with it. When you need to appeal to "tropes" there's something wrong. e: ImpAtom posted:"So, the injections are administered periodically. Addiction will not be tolerated. And those who cannot regulate will be out from the programme. Once misfits, cripples...You are the next iteration of human evolution." Drug addiction makes people evil 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:The movie's villains are disabled vets who sought treatment for their disabilities and are now evil. The movie's villains are disabled vets who sought treatment for their disabilities and are now evil. Incorrect. The movie's villain is a rich arms dealer who takes advantages of crippled vets who have nowhere else to turn to. There is in fact a thematic reason the villain is a rich arms dealer abusing veterns and working with a vice president to take advantage of a racist boogieman to turn a profit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
site posted:Why assume veterans are heroes The movie itself assumes it, or at least implies it. Unless you think "interview videos of people with missing limbs looking pitiful as they describe how they obtained war injuries" is supposed to imply that they're, in fact, reprehensible people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Incorrect. The movie's villain is a rich arms dealer who takes advantages of crippled vets who have nowhere else to turn to. Okay. Tony Stark fights the disenfranchised, and does nothing to help them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Okay. No, Tony Stark fights the person taking advantage of the disenfranchised. There is, in fact, a difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Is the veterans being crazy a thematic reflection of Tony's PTSD? Are they nightmare figures who represent his fears of losing himself? They arent. ImpAtom posted:No, Tony Stark fights the person taking advantage of the disenfranchised. There is, in fact, a difference. Tony Stark fights the disadvantaged and does nothing to help them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
What? the hero has some insurmountable problem they need to overcome in order to save a loved one? This movie makes no sense at all!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:59
|
|
