|
euphronius posted:I knew nothing about strange so I rly liked it. Felt different then the other marvel movies . It was basically a remake of Iron Man. That said I did like the way the 'boss' was defeated so it has that going for it.
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Are you equating man of steel with a cartoon? Something doesn't suddenly become a mature adult product because it isn't a cartoon. Even the grimmest and darkest of comic book movies are still literally designed for children except I guess maybe like Deadpool? (and Deadpool is basically a cartoon anyway, just one with the word gently caress and violence.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Deadpool is absolutely for kids Well, it's rated R so technically it's not but yeah it totally is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I just wouldn't lump Man of Steel with Teen Titans Go. That is because one is focused on drama and action and the other is a irreverent comedy, not because one is live action and the other a cartoon. You could very reasonably compare say Mystery Men and Teen Titans Go perhaps.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I guess? My point was, Man of Steel is kind of an all ages thing. It's just mature enough for adults, and uh...I guess for kids in some way. Pictured: A joke for children.  (Like most kids shows, TTG features a lot of 'subtle' jokes designed for adults. The people whining that it isn't the original Teen Titans are not the same as someone watching the show with their kid.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The argument is very easy people. Adult men yelling at cartoons for kids is bad and weird. No, it's just as weird to yell at live action movies for kids actually. Probably weirder even. The "Well, they're actually ALL AGES films" is like the "It's an action figure, not a doll" of movie conversations.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:where, exactly, do you draw the line between "smoothbrain movie for children" and "Real poo poo" A film for children isn't the same as 'smoothbrain' or whatever it is you want to say. A lot of kid-focused material still can have things to say, feature actual violence and uncomfortable material, and so-on. It is however often sanitized, played down or emphasized in such a way as not to hurt the impact of selling these characters and toys to children and teenagers. Superman, at the end of the day, wants you to buy the Superman toys and always veers towards being as safe as it can be. The fact that people take the safest and lamest criticism of anything as an assault on 'their Superman' despite it almost exclusively being taken directly from the comic books is on them, not a sign the film is a startling revelation or whatever. "Children were sad and scared" doesn't make it not for kids. If it was then Secret of NIMH, Transformers: The Movie, Gremlins, The Neverending Story, etc would suddenly not qualify. Children enjoy being scared.They remember it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:It's actually pretty funny that you mention TF: The Movie, because the way kids reacted to Optimus' death is like half of why I would go "hell no" to a kid wanting to watch Logan. I suppose it depends there. Tragic death scenes (even if they are undone later) I think have purposes. My little sister is old enough that she grew up watching Avengers and she was really sad about Phil Coulson dying. ("he came back in the TV show" wasn't really a thing any of us knew/cared about ta the time.) Logan is more violent but the subject matter isn't really that different from any other superhero film. The part I think would be *hardest* for a kid isn't actually the deaths but Patrick Stewart's uncomfortable dementia... and enough kids have experience with aging grandparents that it's not exactly inappropriate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:The rest of that aside it's been a while since I saw it but doesn't he save them from getting crispy? Like, that's what ultimately forces the suicide by cop. It's been argued both ways. The family is not shown again after the last shot of the beam being literally right on top of them. Generally the way it's framed appears to make you think otherwise (Superman pulls Zod's head UP before snapping his neck, aiming his eyebeams away from the family) but it's not inaccurate to say that it can be read either way and there is evidence to support it. That said uh, a half-second shot of the family running away afterwards would probably not have been a bad thing to underline "Superman did a great tragedy to save these lives" instead of having them vanish off the face of the Earth.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I think we even SEE them after the fact. You don't see them scamper off. I looked again and you see them in the distance after the neck-snap and then not again.  So they are alive, it's just a weirdly obscure way to show it especially because nobody's going to be looking at the background in that shot. Jutsuka posted:Alive and unharmed. Just requires the viewer to pay attention. This is the laziest criticism. It's a badly handled part of the scene because "to pay attention" means the viewer would be looking at a muted part of the background instead of the brightly colored protagonist and the corpse falling to the floor which dominate the scene. Edit: Also keep in mind that shot is literally less than a second long. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:It's not "weirdly obscured" or "badly handled", it's just unimportant. Of course the family didn't die. The focus of the scene is on Superman because that's the important part. That basically sums up a lot of the problems people have with MoS right there to be honest. "The people Superman saved are unimportant" is basically the crux of the criticism people have with the way the direction was handled. Superman saving people is a given, the film's choice to focus on Superman over giving lip service to the lives he saved leads to people coming away with an unwanted view of the film. It's why the sequel focuses far, far, far more on that or on the people Superman saved, failed to save, and on the consequences of both.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
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
|
|