|
The MSJ posted:Apparently, a Suicide Squad sequel is already planned with Ayer and Smith returning. It's mentioned in this article about Will Smith starring in a David Ayer movie about an orc cop written by Max Landis. This sounds kinda Top Ten-ish to me, for some reason. It's clearly not, but there you go.
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I just hope they go all in with those comparisons. Like, just straight-up claim that the next Avengers movie is Fargo. This thread is gonna burn. Just like all those parked cars in the next movie. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:And yet it still won't FEEL as long as Age of Ultron. What a boring shitshow that was.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:
I think Winter Soldier is the best of the Marvel stuff - I REALLY enjoyed it, followed by Iron Man 1. I really felt like the Raccoon was the only good part of Guardians of the Galaxy - everything else was forgetful especially the other characters, and Ant-Man was actually pretty good, too. Thor had a ratio of 3:1 of boring to fun. Avengers 1 is the only movie in a long while to put me to sleep - both times I watched it. The characters felt like simplified, uninteresting versions of their individual movie counterparts and the action scenes relied more on going "Oh! I recognize these characters!" more than being actually good and well done. Avengers 2 was everything lazy and bad about Avengers 1 taken up another $X million dollars in budget. Drifter fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The Nolan Batman films were pretty drat dark and even pretty dour (his girlfriend gets clownmurdered, he gets his back broken, etc etc) and people couldn't get enough of them. Some people were actually tweeting #BringBackBale after they saw BvS. I mean really though, his back was only lightly sprained going by how he recovered. Who knew there was a licensed chiropractic in that whole in the ground prison? BvS was great fun and interesting, but there were a few clumsy moments - namely the 'save Martha!' bit, and I'd have loved to see more Clark doing Clark stuff regarding Batman because he has a really strange hate on otherwise given all the other poo poo that goes on in the world (but I guess Batman is so near that it chaps his hide that he doesn't get as much poo poo even though Batman's effectively killing people by marking the criminals) and it would make his really poor effort to get Batman's help prior to their fight scene a little more acceptable, as well as him talking to Lois about his place as Superman. I absolutely loved the scene with Costner. That perfectly encapsulated his struggle. I think maybe people don't like how Superman isn't really a personality so much as a force of nature. The want him to kiss babies and make clever comments to the crowds of adoring masses. I'm totally fine with Batman killing people, and him using a gun in a loving dream, because that suits this character - which also happens to be an interesting one. (i hope he makes girlfriend/boyfriend with Diana) 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Rurea posted:My friend and I laughed out loud when Bruce Wayne has to call his VP or whoever and tell him to evacuate the building while every employee is staring slackjawed out the window at the giant fuckoff death machine that is laying waste to the city and inching closer to them every second. He doesn't HAVE to. He's just checking to make sure that everyone has left or is leaving. And he's doing it in a nice but straightforward way. Like, when the twin towers fell, they didn't evacuate buildings15 city blocks away. Those buildings are also pretty closed systems. No one's gonna fuckin' know that another building fell two minutes ago, or that the destruction is hopping its way towards them. And when they do see poo poo going down, they probably don't know what the gently caress is going on, so they're looking out their windows thinking 'what the gently caress is this poo poo?' and thinking that it's probably safer to be inside their building than outside it. He obviously cares about them after a fashion, so why wouldn't he call to make sure they are safe, or to update them with further information since he's got a better perspective at ground level?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Remember the Hulk/Hulkbuster fight where the two tumble down a completely straight, empty stretch in an otherwise crowded plaza? Tony even bought a skyscraper seconds before he and the Hulk destroyed it. Like, even property values are being explicitly saved in teh MU.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Bruce and Diana first date confirmed! His car's still in the shop, so he got a company loaner.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Well, that's the thing. I'm, as my posting history indicates, sensitive to many social justice issues, but I don't think a lot of people on that front are sensitive to a lot of what's being said. The Ancient One IS steeped in a lot of unfortunate tropes as a rule, and much like the Mandarin, the idea of "fixing him" is never going to be wholly successful without changing the entirety of the Dr. Strange mythos to the point it's unrecognizable, removing not only the pastiche of Asian mysticism, but also the fact that Steven Strange is a white man inheriting the secrets of said pastiche. Representing him with a member of some other Asian culture would also be disrespectful, because it ignores the fact that Asian people are not homogeneous or interchangeable. You can't excise the character because that would be erasure. And, of course, making him Tibet would piss China off and get the movie banned. He's entirely correct about the fact that no one decision would satisfy everyone, and certain members of the SJW movement are unfortunately falling into the trap of being very selective or ignorant of various issues. Most normal people see Doctor Strange and think "Oh look, this dude is magical and doing crazy magical poo poo", not "oh, this man is acturately portraying the many varied middle eastern semi-magical mystical practices by screaming out 'BY THE HOARY HOSTS OF HOGGOTH'. and shooting laser rays from his fingertips." Like, you could change the nationality of his teacher with no loving problem to the Dr Strange mythology.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:What makes Thanos an exciting villain? I'm completely unfamiliar with him. He's as exciting a villain as Boba Fett is, for exactly the same obtuse reasons. Specifically to him, he's a Mutant Alien from a race called the Eternals. He Hitlered his parents and most of his planet or whatever, and is just generally a Bad Dude. He is in love with the personification of Death, a character only he can see. He can fight toe to toe with Hulk and Galactus and sometimes come out on top. His family time with his children are spent trying to kill them. The green and bald, blue chick from Guardians of the Galaxy are both his kids. He wants to take over the Universe, and then destroy it as a gift to his  girlfriend Death.Ummm...he possessed a thing called the Inifnity Gauntlet and remade the Universe in his own image killing googlians, but was talked into committing suicide and reverting the universe back to the way it was originally, and unkilling all those people, by Adam Warlock. Uhhh....Blue and has groovy armor which he doesn't need because he comes back to life all the time. Galactus (not the FF movie one, or Ultimate one) and Doom are much more interesting characters. Hell, Kang or, or Drifter fucked around with this message at 03:48 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Burkion posted:
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Unironically yeah. That'd be fun. Pink looks rad as hell if you do it right. I've never really cared one way or another abotu Power Rangers, but you and I both know there's going to be so much post-processing digital work done that that real world photo will look like a drawing from your five year old you hang on the fridge.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Dacap posted:I really think based on these that they're going the route that Rita is a former green ranger. There's a lot of similar design elements between these and her costume. "Hi guys, I'm evil now, but I really liked my old costume."
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Yeah, right? Ares - actual god of war - is legit in the movie. It'll be pretty dope, I hope. I've not read Nu52 comics, but I remember there was a really good run of hers before that whole thing.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:If Snyder was a better director maybe he could like, I dunno, DIRECT Grant Gustin to be the Flash they wanted. That is what a director is supposed to do. Is their 'vision" for him to have a stupid little wispy beard? For him to be vaguely ethnic? Hmmm, let's have ol' Ezra weigh in: What the gently caress makes Grant GUstin so special as the flash except that he's already on some mediocre tv show whining about how he's not fast enough to have a dad who loves him?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I decided to look up the interview. They don't state the question in the article but the lead in to his answer is "we asked how his version of The Flash will be different than previous versions we’ve seen. The actor didn’t reveal anything specific but gave us the impression of a more flawed character." I don't know. Barry on the TV show is pretty flawed. He likes his secrets and the surrounding drama they cause. He's very high school about it all - fitting for the CW. The only good characters on that show are (mostly) Cop Dad, (always) Cisco and (forever and ever) whoever Tom Cavanagh is at the moment. Drifter fucked around with this message at 17:50 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Sorry I worded my post a little weird. I'm aware that the DC TV and film universes are currently separate, I'm just suggesting it would be more profitable overall if they weren't. One thing I always really enjoyed about comics growing up is that all the stories were taking place in the same universe. It was all contributing to the same overall lore. It's pretty obvious that a big part of MCU's success is this concept. This is absolutely not true at all. Not about your youth I mean, but abotu the MCU. The practical application of these shows themselves demonstrate how wrong you are abotu them contributing to the cinemaspace success. quote:When I created the television show, it was sort of on the understanding that this can work and we can do it with integrity, but these Avengers movies are for people to see the Avengers movies and nothing else.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I think the Marvel/Disney brand had more to do with it than a shared continuity. Haha, yeah. The god tier advertising and coke/pepsi/McDonald's levels of consumer branding.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:So you don't think the movies contributed to the success of the tv shows either? I use the word 'success' loosely. My point is that they created a single universe spanning multiple properties. Every movie and tv show and comic about it contributes to someones overall investment in it, and makes them more likely to consume future media in that universe. If every Marvel movie took place in its own universe, it would not be nearly as successful. Each marvel movie kinda does take place in their own universe, though, they just use the characters over again. Every big plot or interesting character development advancement gets tossed by the wayside come the next movie. Of course, I haven't seen Civil War yet, so I don't really know what it pulls in from previous movies. And no, I absolutely do not believe the AoS show contributed in any way to the success of the future films (from the airing of the show). And the pretty good Netflix shows are, again, isolated from the cinema side of things, borrowing only incredibly superficially certain keywords or plot elements. Which is fine and all, but it doesn't contribute in any way to anything else's success outside of that network's programming. Drifter fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Ben Affleck is now an executive producer on Justice League: It's already shooting though, right? isn't everything already written? What will Affleck contribute?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:It's not even that. The "no kill code" is important to Batman. It is not just a product of his sense of morality, but of his trauma, the fact that his origin involves death. It is a leash he puts around his own neck. The 'kill code' *used* to be important to Batman, but between his sidekick getting possibly killed and the toll 20 years of fighting criminals in a near-revolving door system takes, it's perfectly fine to have a Batman who doesn't think much of killing bad people to even the odds. It's a shame about the Not My Bat-/Super- man crowd.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
I loved the scene in the original Batman when Keaton's Bruce Wayne confronts the Joker at Vickki Vale's house (I think) - where he goes loving nutso by the fireplace all yelling and screaming and Joker shoots him.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Keaton's amazing because at so many points he comes off like this weird big kid who never grew up and is such a Tim Burton character yet perfectly suited for Batman. Like hell, that moment where he goes "ya wanna get nuts?? LET'S GET NUTS" seems more like he's probing the Joker just to see what he'll do than trying to escape. That was my impression too. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's important that the Batcave in the movie is the one from the end of Dark Knight Rises. Bruce hasn't learned a thing and loves being Batman. Robin's outfit isn't in a glass case out of respect. The man needs to make shrines to his obsessions. Unless you can show me an interview with Snyder that says that I don't believe that for a second. And what's important about Bruce enjoying being Batman? I mean, duh? What would he have learned? But you're right about the obsession thing, but that's kinda of straightforward given the damage to the suit. It's there to remind him firstly about whatever happened, not so that he never forgets what a good person Dick/Jason/Tim was. Drifter fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
axelord posted:The last big Batman movie trilogy made the "No Kill rule" a big plot point. It's understandable that people would notice the difference and not like it. *growly growl* "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."   Goddamn, that was almost as bad as the MARTHA!, Martha? crap in BvS. The ending of the Dark Knight was kinda goofy. Back when I watched it I didn't really understand why he was running away aside from Harvey Dent being dead. Like, just blame Joker who gives a poo poo? Drifter fucked around with this message at 15:48 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Well, it's kind of the same thing though isn't it? People are surprised that Batman kills not because Nolan's films, but because of this perceived platonic ideal of the character they've arrived at from a variety of sources. I get it. I just think it's dumb. Batman not killing or Batman killing as such a minor quibble. It's like what made parts of Season 2 of Daredevil crash and burn - Murdock's screaming at Punisher for killing bad guys and all the while he's throwing people down stairs, twisting their heads off, strangling them, punching their heads until they're unconscious and beyond, crushing foreheads, et cetera. Oh, but I guess magically by the grace of god they survive because ...? CLearly there's a delineator to Batman, going back to the movies. Otherwise he'd just kill everyone ever. He's branding the pedos and human traffikers, sending criminals to the courts...who are legalizing his brand of vigilantism, by the way, so it's mandated at least. So, Batman kills, but what's his modus? What's his decision making process for who dies and who doesn't? Just because Batman didn't kill people in BTAS doesn't make that the only way Batman can act.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:For about 30 years of Batman's life in the comics, 75% of stories were about him not killing and pursuing those that do, including his friends and family. Same thing with Superman comics and Justice League comics. This i the entire basis for the Huntress's character. And Jason Todd. Huntress, Jason Todd and Batfleck would be the best of friends in the Snyder universe. We're talking dozens of stories specifically debating the morality of killing in a wide variety of situations. Wonder Woman causing a single fatality caused the Justice League to break up for a full year. It's cool if you don't read comics but don't pretend that it's not a very vital part of his character. Wonderwoman was totally in the right killing Maxwell Lord. Huntress killed EVERYBODY. Huntress would've killed a grocery store employee for not asking her 'paper or plastic?' Batffleck isn't killing everybody. He's killed a very select few who were I think trying to kill him as well. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:For about 25 years, 100% of Batman stories were about fighting dinosaurs, traveling through time, marching in the Gotham Day parade, hanging out with Bat-Woman, etc. What's your point? NOT MY SUPERMAN. Harime Nui posted:It's the "I don't have to save you" thing taken to a logical extreme. Those guys in the technical could have abandoned their posts and it's unlikely Batman would waste bullets gunning them down while they ran. But since they chose to stand there and shoot at him they weren't going to escape when he removed that gunpost as an obstacle. Batman won't go out of his way to kill anybody but he is done bullshitting around and will take the quickest route from A to B and if that means some rear end in a top hat burns alive from his own (horrible) weapon malfunctioning welp. Seems reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:This is simply not true. The entire basis of their characters is that they would kill a bad guy in self-defense and Batman never would, under any circumstances. Jason Todd believes Batman can't accomplish his goal of wiping out crime unless he kills the bad guys. The no-kill rule is literally the only way they can explain why they haven't killed the Joker. It's the entire basis of the conflict between Jason Todd and Batman. Batfleck would just murder the gently caress out of the Joker, and rightly so. But there are people he DOESN'T kill, like all the OTHER mercenaries. He also captures a SHITTON of normal criminals and sends them out for the police to deal with. Who were the people he killed, and in what context? He's not some robotic killing machine in the movie. Also, there's an evolution to comics. BvS is a Batman down a different path, but even without the costume he is still unarguably (to non-autists) Batman. IIf you want to, you could also say that as he grew older, Batman's line between heroism and whatever grew so fine that there wasn't any divide anymore, so he would use whatever he could use however he could use it. Maybe after this BvS he'll begin to have some form of self-regulation again. This whole time in BvS Batman was villainous. He was no longer a superhero, not until near the end. Drifter fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think you're confusing a character's ethos with their actions. Adam West's Batman, B:TAS's Batman, and Nolan's Batman do different things--but their values are pretty much the same. Batman who knowingly incites prison violence would clearly be a villain in the eyes of all three of those dudes. In one of the 'recent' camic arcs, Batman was outed as Bruce Wayne and he went to jail, and he 'incited prison violence' a la Rorshach and just kept loving up dudes. That was the mainstream comic. Timeless Appeal posted:Batman can do whatever he wants and you can write a story where Batman does whatever he wants. And it's ok to find it dumb. Sure, but he's still Batman, no matter what he does. He may not be a young nerdling's prim and proper idealized masturbatory version they've cooked up in their own head, but you're never going to achieve that. Drifter fucked around with this message at 18:32 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:See that's the exact same thing I'm talking about. "He answers to no one
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I enjoyed Tomorrowland AND John Carter. I thought they were both pretty fun. Looking forward to Incredibles 2 - I've not heard anything about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Clearly the correct order having not seen Civil War yet is Winter Soldier, Iron Man 1/ Deadpool, Uhh..., Maybe Ant-Man?, Hrrmmm. Guardians is schlock that looks pretty, Thor sucks, Captain America 1 is pretty okay, actually, it's somewhere after Ironman/Deadpool tie. Avengers and Avengers:Ultron are the Worst Offenders.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Oasx posted:To be fair, the idea that you can only release good movies during certain parts of the year is idiotic. More studious should stop wasting money on the over-competitive summer months, and instead spread out their movies. I think there are some legit issues, like being in school/work versus out of school/work, and so on as far as free time goes. It also depends on what the studios want, whether they want to release so they can position their physical media release for a certain date, or be oscar bait and still in the minds of the voting judges. I mean, consumers, for many reasons, fall into patterns that business follow. It's hard to change that.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
I've always been amazed and intrigued by the complaints about Batman killing dudes because starting with Keaton's Batman he's been killing people left and right. Hell, cinema Batfleck wasn't even the first time Batman incinerated a dude. Batman Returns' Batmobile hosed up a dude in Returns. I just think it's really interesting how BTAS shaped the current crop of adults, as well as camp nostalgia from the 60's Batman - alongside the jocular inanity of the super successful MCU. I don't mean the MCU's bad or anything, but it definitely has a lighter, more transitory tone. Batfleck is an interesting version of the Batman, and I'm glad they went his way. And hot drat, the conflicts Superman has with himself regarding how to actually be an effective hero are fuckin' wonderful. I loved Costner's mountain scene. I'm excited to watch the Ultimate cut when I get around to it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
The Dave posted:Nolans Batman having a code is still very fresh in the general public's minds. It really doesn't go much further than that. That "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" code is very reminiscent of  .Like, it's so dumb. It's hardly even a code. "Hey buddy, although it's well within my means and abilities to save you, I'm choosing not to. This allows me to maintain my moral superiority since I'm not actively killing you, I'm merely passively watching you die...from up close. Do you see the difference?" Like, at least bvs Batman put his big baddie behind bars. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
I was watching Batman Returns the other day and totally didn't remember all the sexual innuendo for some reason. Penguin was a horndog. When he met up with Catwoman one time and was all "Now this is a pussy I like to see" or whatever I was all whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-? It was hilarious. And poor Batman being in love-ish with Selina. How bittersweet that murder scene/ending was. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I don't think that's actually true at all. A challenging film might be hard to watch, but even that comes from a visceral place. For a lot of people, BvS was ultimately just a bore. There just wasn't a connection. Your definition is a bit off. Something challenging doesn't mean you have to feel it deep in your belly whether you like it or not. If something is a challenge and you disagree with the thesis then you'll just disregard it and become bored. I'm not saying the other dude is right, but there's a lot BVS provides if you pay attention, but if you don't pay attention you'll find it boring because you can't engage. And if you don't like the characters then you won't like the movie, as well, but that's unrelated to what you're talking about. Also, I think the theatrical cut benefits from having extended knowledge of the characters because the movie requires certain leaps due to the editing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:
I would say that people who DON'T think about movies weren't engaged by it. The people who DO think about movies liked it or disliked it based on their own merits and tolerances.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
broken clock opsec posted:I mean, keeping in mind that the entire premise is the "good guys" are using human slavery to accomplish nebulous goals, yeah. Uhh, they're all un-fixable murderers and whatnot. Also, The government is not the good guys. It's the bad guys using the badder guys to maintain the status quo. Joker's gonna be the 'good guy' in a meta sense. Drifter fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:In fairness, there was an event that happened between those two films that might have changed her mind, wherein she was almost complicit in the destruction of the entirety of the human race. I always forget Age of Ultron exists; it was super lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:So have we finally reached the point where people are calling Civil War a bad film? No no. AoU was a bad film. Civil War was just confused.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2016 19:00
|
|