|
greatn posted:Man of Steel is better than any Marvel studios film. Don't troll.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
HIJK posted:Steve Rogers is always right because he's always on the side of freedom. Tony Stark is the frightened reactionary trying to get control of an uncontrollable situation. His entire arc from Iron Man 2 (you can't have my suits, government) to Civil War (on the side of government disenfranchising others, since he is already out publicly) is a hilariously accurate depiction of a modern conservative.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
net cafe scandal posted:I noticed his tie was red in one scene - The Republican color. Can't have been a coincidence. Let's not make eye contact.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Pablo Gigante posted:I hope it's at least as good as BvS because that movie was great. I wish BvS had jokes like this one...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Pablo Gigante posted:BvS had jokes though Sorry, I meant funny ones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Pablo Gigante posted:Turn your monitor on. This post is the only clever thing associated with Zack Snyder's work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Levity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
That piece of "news" makes no sense. Why pay for a huge star when lower-profile actresses will do just as well? A female superhero will sell just as well as a male one will. Captain Marvel is pretty much unheard of to people like me, but so was Ant-Man and the Guardians of the Galaxy. The latter made gigantic piles of cash and the former made very good bank.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Well Snyder's still making Justice League, so expect another good movie that you think is bad because it's not garishly cartoonish enough. But enough about Civil War...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Wasn't the debunking basically "that isn't how time works"? As in, "we already had these pickups (reshoots?) planned before that other movie even came out, how could it be a reaction to something that hadn't happened yet?" People are not really bothered by the tone of DC's movies. They are bothered by the nonsensical characterizations and boring plots. They talk about how dour they are because that is the biggest, most palpable difference between Marvel's films (which they enjoy) and DC's films. If the films were well-written, no one would care about their relatively darker tone.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
Those suits are hilariously bad. Picturing them doing their karate poses in them...
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Burkion posted:WWI was kind of worse than almost any war before it though. The Civil War was horrific. Far worse than WWI.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Danger posted:Huh what? Did you mistype? Saying casualties of WWI dwarf those of the Civil War is an understatement. More people died in just the Battle of Somme than almost all of the US Civil War. That is not the only metric. The Civil War had a unique mixture of firearms and tactics better suited for melee combat. That, combined with surgical practices that resembled carpentry more than modern surgery, and you have a recipe for a horrifying spectacle.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:There's probably a cheap shot in there somewhere but I am going to give Judakel the benefit of the doubt and assume he's stupid rather than racist. Like, Gallipoli, one of the smaller and less-disastrous campaigns of WW1, had more than half as many casualties as the entire Civil War. Familiarize yourself with the particulars of the Civil War, not just the body count.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:This is just reminding me that Marvel hasn't gotten on the boat of getting Herc and Ares into the MCU and that makes me sad They barely know how to handle Thor. Those films are consistently dull. Fantasy sci-fi like Thor seems to escape them for the time being.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I'mma let you finish, but Did you get a chance to rewatch MoS yet?
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yes, but I'm still waiting for you to answer me in the other thread. If you rewatched it, the film answered it for me.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Batman is a reckless idiot in BvS. All brawn.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:It's not that he's recklessly violent, it's that Luthor somehow knows his identity and plays him like a harp. This is not supposed to happen to Batman. Batman is one of the smartest people in the DCU, and his field is being the guy who figures out the villain's real plans. He's the World's Greatest Detective. He is both reckless and an idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The trick with the reviewers who end up on Rotten Tomatoes is that you can achieve identical results by just taking any random idiot and giving them a paycheque and an editor. In aggregate it is far more damning, thus the site.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:If you're being entertained by a movie why would you notice the editing? You'd be caught up in the story / visuals / score / whatever it is you like in a movie. You should watch Raging Bull.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Can someone remind me what the good superhero movies are then? Because I'm pretty sure this thread hates each individual one. The Dark Knight and Civil War are both good movies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
LGD posted:Because they were genuinely convinced/hoped it was going to be a good movie based on marketing and a pre-existing attachment to the characters/comics/comic universe? Plenty of them also thought it was good. Just fewer than thought that in the case of the Marvel films, something that can be seen in critical reviews/box office results/etc. This isn't a "more money = better than" thing, it's a "we have pretty solid evidence that these movies have genuinely disappointed a lot of their intended audience" thing, and slagging the competition or making up bizarre theories about how the "Marvel formula" has poisoned audience expectations in such a way that people cannot see the virtues of the superior product placed before them is just daft. This sounds like a delightfully post-hoc way to cover-up for your blunder.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
seravid posted:Robotman v Batman You just proved his point. Cavill is mechanical and the depth of his performance can be captured in screenshots. Try doing that with a great actor.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You could literally do that with any great actor, you dope. You can't, you moron. Not Brando, not a young De Niro, not Clift, not Day-Lewis.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Oh man, imagine if you could capture the essence of Brando...in pictures! You can't capture the depth of Terry Malloy in still frames. The "essence of Brando" is a completely different thing and utterly meaningless. Why reply only to reveal your poor reading comprehension?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Just to remind everyone, Judy is the poor mans troll who may not realize he is a troll. Can you remember things you've written two pages ago yet?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The amount of iconic still photos that have been taken of Pacino or DeNiro or Day-Lewis are endless, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Clearly you do not know what I am talking about, since I am referring to performances. Look at the post above yours. It is a still frame of De Niro in Taxi Driver. An iconic image, but does it tell you much about the character? Of course not! In the picture you see what looks like an arrogant Bickle, but that is only a small part of the multi-dimensional performance that De Niro gave us. Travis is also shy, unassuming, vulnerable, etc. Cavill's Superman, and most Supermen, are silly characters with little to no depth.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Burkion posted:The fact that you still cling to that is adorable I never argued that you are not taking part of a "masterpiece" when you take a still frame from a film. I was pretty clear on what I said: A still imagine cannot capture the full depth of a performance, and if it does, it is a one-dimensional, lovely performance. I am the stupid one, though. Why do you make me repeat myself?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Cavill is playing a character with less depth than DeNiro's Travis Bickle, wow, how insightful. No, reread my posts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Burkion posted:You're shifting goals and you keep repeating yourself to make it seem that the goals are the same. I am not shifting goals. I claimed that if one or a handful of still images can capture the depth of a performance, then you have are dealing with a bad actor. Someone thought a handful of still images captured the range of emotions in Cavill's Superman. If you didn't have such a vendetta, you might've realized it is a pretty simple point.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I think there are times when you can capture a great performance in a single still photograph, but I think a lot of credit for that would also to go a writer and director for creating such an all-encompassing moment. Would you feel the same way if you had not seen the film and superimposed the fullness of the performance per the film onto that still image?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Goalpost shift emphasized. The depth of a performance is entirely composed of the range of emotions an actor brings to it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What an odd claim. Can you elaborate?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Among other things, performances include the selection of and transition between displays of emotion to convey complex internal thoughts or conflicting states. You can see this in the scenes between Clark and Lois. Henry Cavill tends to beam out one particular emotion with each line, and he's got perfectly fine range for this. Amy Adams frequently moves between different emotions, sometimes just in the buildup to a line, to convey what she's going through in thinking through her response. She gives a deeper performance, but not one built out of conveying a greater range of emotion. Transitioning between displays of emotion to convey complex internal thoughts or conflicting states is all part of conveying a range of emotions. Cavill fails to transition in a smooth and subtle way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Ever wondered if the problem wasn't with other posters' reading comprehension, but with you being amazingly lovely at making points? No, I am usually very clear when I am not joking. Sometimes there is a need to define terms because other people may not be used to them, but that is about it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What is used in "conveying a range" is not the range itself. It's completely unsurprising you'd decide to conflate the two, but it's not particularly convincing. There is no conflating. Human beings do not switch between emotions mechanically, and we are talking about a human character's range of emotions. A performance is entirely composed of this range.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:You couldn't have picked four worse examples. All four are and were obviously very attentive to body language and facial expressions because they're actors! But the full depth of their great performances cannot be captured in one or a handful of still images, as I have already argued in posts you did not read.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:If you have to say "No, that's not what I said! Read my post again!" every two posts, your posts are lovely my friend. Did you understand them?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It is composed of this range, but the nature of the composition is not built out of the extent of the range but also the choices made of expression within it. A painting is composed of a range of color, but the painting is not defined just by its range, but also how that range of color is applied to a canvas to form a picture. Now you're talking about choices, which are not part of what a performance is composed of, but instead are conscious decisions made by the actor which we are not privy to in any direct way. These meta-processes are kept private by the actor. We only witness the range itself, which is the full extent of the range and the transitions between emotions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 20:51
|
|