|
Is there a new Daredevil Season 2 thread? I can't find it.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Edit: oops
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:You know, with all the talk about the dream sequences in BvS and the cameos, I've been thinking about which one I'd really like to see. Is art by that Bernie Wrightson?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Batman Forever is actually good I think. A waste of Two Face and Tommy Lee Jones but overall it's not bad. I think it's way better than Batman Returns to be honest. Returns has like 15 total minutes of Batman and it's mostly just the fights. Seconding this. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "good" but I didn't hate it. Kilmer is really good as Bruce and I didn't mind Jim Carrey.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Natalie Portman will not be in Thor 3. She was fine in Creed. Only thing I remember being distracted by or standing out with her was how much she reminded me of Lisa Bonet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:Or god forbid, there is a movie with no love interest. I'm not saying romance in movies is bad or anything, but after shoehorning in Black Widow's attraction to Hulk in AoU, I'm perfectly fine with not setting up any more relationships. HULK STRAIGHT!!!! http://www.shwiggie.com/media/images/hulk_straight.jpg BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:ya I always think its weird when u go to like page 40 of a movie thread and the entire thing is just black bars, like, who is that for? I'm gonna go with "People who have/have not seen the film" but I may be way off base.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:As excited as I am for Suicide Squad, i'm a bit concerned and confused about the storyline. I feel like the trailers are not doing enough to give the basic premise behind this film. From what I've been able to glean from the trailers, it looks like The Government/The Cops/The CIA/SHIELD (insert shadowy puppet master here) has decided to band together the villains to carry out a covert op under the rightful assumption that they're not only powerful but expendable as well and the whole thing somehow backfires and they all get loose. Then Batman has to come in and kick everyones rear end. It seemed pretty clear cut to me. Not that that means it's a good plot idea or that the film is going to be worth a poo poo but that trailer made more thematic sense to to me than the entirety of BvS. Hat Thoughts posted:Why would they be reading page 40... To read posts that don't have spoilers and because they're interested in the movie and have been following that thread in anticipation of it? You kind of have a point because I know I tend to check out of movie threads once they're released and don't want plots ruined but in answer to your question, that's who the black bars are for. When a thread turns into a wall of black, I usually show myself out. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Oh poo poo, did not see this coming Cross post, but only thing I could think of is Martian Manhunter. He seems to old for Hawkman but I could kind of sort of picture it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I thought season 2 was pretty obviously about Matt's resolve being tested and him failing. Elektra is clearly a bad, toxic influence on him. By the end of the season, he's driven away Karen and Foggy, allied himself with Frank, and tried to murder Nobu in cold blood. He's fallen from grace. Season 3 will probably be about him redeeming himself somehow. "Born Again", if you will.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Marvel has never relied on big stars or directors. Are you being sarcastic? Scarlet Johansen, Robert Downey, Michael Douglas, Wesley Snipes, Paul Rudd, Hugo Weaving, Ed Norton, Mark Ruffalo, Sam Jackson, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman... There are tons of stars in the Marvel movies.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:None of whom are in the prime of their career or as A-list as Jennifer Lawrence is right now. RDJ was at the bottom of his career with a slight resurgence due to the indie movie Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Scarlet Johansen would be the biggest name on that list but circa IM2 was nowhere the level she is now, Wesley Snipes was never A-list, Hugo Weaving is a character actor in the States, Paul Rudd worked as supporting cast in Apatow movies and indie TV shows, Ed Norton hadn't had a hit (this is way before Birdman) in years, ditto with Michael Douglas. Of that list Natalie Portman (an actress that had movies like Black Swan under her belt, but no big screen success since The Professional when she was like 11) and Anthony Hopkins (who has been playing mostly bit parts lately fit for an actor his age) are the most high-tier I think. I'd maintain that all those people are pretty big stars and that your argument doesn't hold. I'm not even counting Sony and Fox actors like Halle Barry, Toby M, Dunst, Pat Stewart, Dafoe, Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kevin Bacon, Emma Stone and bit players like Martin Sheen, Sally Field, etc (unless that was your point: only Marvel actors), but even leaving it just to Marvel actors it's still a pretty star studded cast overall. Maybe you mean they're not casting Robert DeNiro, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford (there's another one) to play the Avengers but you seem to be cherry picking here about what constitutes "stardom" to support an argument I find dubious. Terrance Howard, Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, Rene Russo, Tommy Lee Jones, Idris Elba, Don Cheadle, Josh Brolin...Ben loving Kingsley...Vin Diesel, Glenn Close, Brad Cooper, James Spader... Lot of star power there from where I sit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Man of Steel was terrific and I loved it. *insert 5 page argument*
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
I think DC should scrap the built universe thing and just go directly to having Snyder make a four hour Kingdome Come movie.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I'm not a huge fan of these multi-movie stories anyway. They payoff is never worth it. One movie is always significantly shittier than the others. The Hobbit should have just been one movie and it would have been fine. SolidSnakesBandana posted:I get that race causes controversy in movies, but I'm curious how it really affects the bottom line. Sure people can comment on black Heimdall* or whatever, but did people really decide to not see Thor just because of that? It seems to suggest that there are people that were planning on seeing these movies but then decided not to after they heard the casting. It doesn't seem to take into account people that went to see Thor specifically because of black Heimdall. There's also the idea that there's no such thing as bad press, so just by being a news story you could have conceivably made Thor more popular. Am I vastly underestimating the amount of hardcore racism that exists? I just can't put myself in the mindset of a person that sees a movie trailer and says "Every character isn't white. I am going to pass on this movie." I dunno. There's a fair share of the population threatening not to own or spend the new 20 dollar bills.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What irony or winking did we get with the current run of DC movies? That's not what he meant. He was saying you can film boy scout, all american apple pie heroes (like Captain America and Superman) and still have it come out well.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
I think the only hope for a good FF movie is to set in the early sixties and make it a period piece. Sort of like First Class but make the time period more pronounced and maybe draw heavily from the way "Marvels" did it.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Mad Men and Breaking Bad started the trend of prestige television and lots of Hollywood actors are jumping at the chance to star in them. Unfortunately, I don't think any show has had that same phenomenon status that those two did. edit: Beaten I think you could argue more strongly for the stuff HBO churned out, like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under and The Wire, Oz, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm and True Blood being the real catalysts of "prestige television". That is unless you're only talking about non subscription cable. Even then, I'd argue that shows like NYPD Blue, LA Law, Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere and even the Wonder Years carved out early claims to that mantle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This movie where Old Wolverine is basically working security seems a lot better than whatever the comic was. It was basically "Unforgiven: Wolverine". "I'm not like that no more. I done changed my ways" until he is like that and has to adapt his old ways. Like murdering people for starters. Though I love "Unforgiven", "Old Man Logan" was pretty bad and overall I did not like it even though it had it's moments and was occasionally clever. The art was good. Some of the more enticing parts of the story relied heavily on a lot properties that Marvel doesn't own the rights to so that's a big stumbling block right there as far as getting a film made. I guess they could switch some out for others but that certainly wouldn't improve what was already a pretty bad story with only a few interesting elements. There were a lot of Avengers, FF and Spiderman references that really drove the story, so I'm not sure how they'd go about replacing those things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Wheany posted:LOL, how wonderfully wacky and bizarre I'd go as far as to call it "zany!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Lots of Spider-Man: Homecoming set photos. What are all the dark lines on the blue part of the costume?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I will say one thing, besides Jamie King none of the characters with more than half a line turn in a mega awful performance like Michael Madsen in Sin City 1. Michael Madsen is pretty lovely in everything though. He's been in several really good movies but I always thought he was the weakest part of them. Dude has one facial expression.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:That's just a design. Evidently people believe that just plain colored spandex doesn't show up well on screen or something, it needs some sort of lines and/or texture. Well, I think they're wrong in this case. They look like placeholders for a costume that they were eventually going to sculpt muscles on or add body armor. At least make them webs or something. I don't like those lines.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So this is obviously about the comic but I got Watchmen and am reading it now. I got it on the strength of the recommendations in here about how it's morally ambiguous, complex and the earlier post explaining how it examines different ethical positions and which character you side with says a lot about you. That's fascinating and is what prompted me to buy it first thing when I got money. Beaten, but yeah you're not supposed to like Rorschach, even though he's the super cool looking edgy dude. Later, yeah, you sort of learn why he is the way he is. You're not really supposed to like any of the protagonists since they're all portrayed as deeply flawed , broken people who embody different ideas about the nature of heroism, humanity, Vigilantism, weakness and what the right way to use power in varying degrees. Questioning who's right, who's wrong and the ways they use their powers is pretty central to the point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:It the Ultimate version, Hulk kills hundreds of civilians. Great comic, but the Hulk dialogue was some of the most cringeworthy writing I have ever seen in any medium. "Hulk STRAIGHT!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
I think the rise in popularity of comic book movies can be largely explained just by realizing how difficult it was to pull off the effects before and how much easier it is now. It wasn't that anyone didn't want to see Spiderman, Hulk or X-Men in a movie in 1993, but for a long time the tech wasn't there to pull it off, especially for poo poo like Spider-Man or Hulk. Batman's a little easier because if you get the costume and the cape right, it won't look too silly and he doesn't have to fly or climb walls. Dry ice, practical FX and lighting can carry the day. For poo poo like Spider-Man, Iron Man, Hulk or Thor you need a certain amount of believable CGI. As the effects technology improved it became more and more plausible to realize these comics on screen. I guess you could argue that Donner Superman negates this idea since it was popular and successful but it's an exception and even in 1979 I don't think people were largely drawn to it because of how real it looked.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:what drove Bruce to become Batman?...The reason that everyone thinks Batman is insane is that no writer has bothered to develop a deeper rationale for Bruce's decision to be vigilante. Edit: beaten but yeah First and foremost, his inherited wealth. He's heir to the throne that built Gotham City. I think that's strongly illustrated in most depictions of Batman and explains why he didn't just become a cop or a gumshoe private detective. The reason he's insane is because he travelled down that rabbit hole and, largely because he was rich, never had to do anything else so it became an obsession. Also what Burkion said but I think the purest and most true answer is that Bruce Wayne was born insanely wealthy and only got more wealthy after the death of his parents, which probably adds to the guilt/remorse aspect of the character. Batman's not all that complicated to figure out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Beyond Thunderdome had weird, kind of sanitized (for a Mad Max film, at least) feel to it. Something just so oddly commercial yet completely insane that I can't help but associate with the mid to late 80s. Like Freddy Krueger shilling Pepsi cola. I don't know if that makes sense. It's just so of its time. I can see why it's hit-or-miss for a lot of people. Agreed. I didn't like it either. I think the Tina Turner music videos and poo poo had a lot to do with what you're describing. Still wanna see the new one. Hmm....maybe tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:No Superman in the trailer at all. Not even a hint. He's in that picture but that's it. No Willam Dafoe either so I wonder who he's playing. Can I hope for Martian Manhunter?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
I knew it, you bastard. I was gonna post that. Now someone do the same thing with the JL trailer. That Dr. Strange trailer looks loving insane. Very, very cool. Wonder Woman looks really good too, sort of a mish mash between Captain America, Game of Thrones and Thor, which sounds pretty awesome actually, but I'm not a fan of the character so I haven't gotten too psyched for it. Jonny_Rocket posted:She didn't have much interest in what she calls "Dr. Strangelove" Which one is "Dr. Strangelove"?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Jonny_Rocket posted:The Dr. Strange movie Oh, duh. I was trying to think of a trailer that LOOKED like Dr. Strangelove or reminded me of it. can't believe I was that stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 20:05
|
|
She got the names all mixed up I guess :3
|
feedmyleg posted:Have you seen those buns in The Fly? Dude can get it. The ones he pukes on to liquify them and then sucks up through a straw? That was depicted off camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I also like how so much opinion is formed based off trailers and how hard they appear to be trying....The real secret is stop watching trailers for any movies. Your enjoyment of movies as a whole will rise dramatically because you no longer have the unrealistic expectations that your average trailer imbues I know. Stupid loving plebes seeing advertisements and clips for movies they might want to see one day. Dumb idiots deciding to sample the tone and the general plot of something in order to gauge their interest in it. loving nerds. How many TV's do you not own? MeatwadIsGod posted:Serious question: Do any of you use reviews or aggregators to determine if you're going to see a movie or not? Often, actually. If something I was interested in is getting creamed in the reviews, I usually give it a pass or wait until Netflix. More often though, the opposite happens. It's a film that's getting really positive scores and that may have flown under my radar. It's the positive scores actually that leads me to go see it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Reviews and word of mouth can definitely make big impacts. I know that Her and Life of Pi were not on many people's radar until they received hugely positive reviews and Oscar nominations. This is a great point. I think of films like Birdman, The Witch, Moneyball, The Lobster, Being John Malcovich, Gone Girl and The Big Short that I probably would have missed if the reviews hadn't been so positive.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:What you asked was whether or not it's fair to call movies bad if people don't like it. What? No, I'd say overall it's a pretty good metric. Or are we only gauging the quality of films based on what you yourself like? Re-read what you just wrote and listen to yourself. There's plenty of unpopular movies I like and plenty of popular ones I dislike, but ultimately that makes ME the outlier, not the arbiter.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If we just go by which movies are popular, there would be no discussion because popularity is easily quantified. When a movie makes a billion dollars, its hard to argue that it was unpopular. Should we then stop all debate about how good or bad it was? Assuming you're addressing me, no, and that's not what I was trying to say at all. Simply that, over time, and taken at face value, if you make a list of the top 100 highest grossing films of all time (adjusted for inflation) by and large it's a pretty god damned impressive list of good films. There are several I don't like for sure but that has more to do with my taste than them being objectively good or bad. The guy I was addressing seemed to be implying that "grades" and "popularity" don't count for poo poo and I think they certainly do. It's not the end all and be all, no question. Like, I'm not saying "Thriller", "Purple Rain" or "Dark Side of the Moon" are the greatest records ever made but they're pretty loving good by any measurable standard.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
I think I hosed up the post that Electromax was referring to because I was talking about some really crazy concept art from a documentary I watched called "The Death of Superman Lives". Maybe I wrote "The Death of Superman Returns"HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Marvel has no equivalent with the same cachet. A lot of people feel like the fact that Watchmen is about superhero comics makes it impenetrable and insular but that exact thing makes it stand out, it's very well positioned as the alpha and omega if you don't want to bother reading any other superhero comics. I don't know. I think you have to have a pretty solid understanding of superhero comics to really appreciate what Watchmen did and was trying to say. I can't imagine a casual reader who only knows about Batman, Superman and Spiderman TV shows or used to watch Superfriends as a kid just grabbing it up and really being able to pick up what it was about.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:I honestly think we should have gotten a Man of Steel sequel before BvS. That way they could have focused more on Batman and audiences would have already been familiar with why the world sees Superman the way they do after the events of the first film. I still think BvS worked but it was definitely a needlessly hard uphill battle to make work when they could have fleshed out Superman as a character in his own sequel film. The origin story is over, so let the character do his own thing. Agree totally. Plus this way you could call the new movie Man of ST33L.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
You need a sort of "blank slate" actor to play Superman. For starters, the character has no mask to hide behind so you can't cast someone that's famous enough to the point where it's distracting and all you see is "OMG, it's...(insert high profile actor)" like you can with Downey, Maguire or Affleck who have their faces covered a lot. Superman is an alien and also an everyman so you need someone playing him that's like "Yep, he looks like Superman. Yep, he looks like Clark Kent." So, yeah, that's why Christopher Reeve was so god damned perfect. He was a blank canvas, an unknown and just loving looked the part. Cavill was fine and more physically imposing but he never got to really emote and really play with the role much like Reeves did. Routh was fine as a successor to Reeve but wasn't given much to do either. Come it think of it, just about every film adaptation and casting of Superman has been perfectly acceptable; maybe even perfect. Even George Reeves captured that Golden Age/Alex Ross persona of the character well enough. I never saw Smallville.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Luke Cage trailer is up http://www.avclub.com/article/luke-cage-becomes-harlems-defender-first-official--240818 I think it looks good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 12:19
|
|