|
Picklepuss posted:See, for me a good Spidey wouldn't side with Iron Man. I'll admit though I've only seen three Marvel movies (Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, and the first Captain America) so I don't know if Cinematic Iron Man is the same fascist bastard that Comic Book Iron Man is. So I could be totally wrong. So basically, you won't see this movie because it's not the way you envisioned it would be? Echoing what others have said, this movie is absolutely nothing like the Civil War comic - it's in name only. People are being rude to you because you're being quick to judge a movie you haven't seen based on your incorrect assumptions. It's okay though - my recommendation would be to see this, since this Spider-Man is the best we've gotten thus far.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
IUG posted:I only have one complaint about the film that comes to mind, about Ant-Man. Why does he pick Cap's side? I would assume Ant-Man chose Captain America's side because his mentor, Hank Pym, loving hates Stark, S.H.I.E.L.D. and the government. Also, he was probably "star struck", as others have said, when meeting Cap for the first time.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I agree that "Tony manipulated Peter against Captain America" is getting a bit overblown. I don't think it's that strange, given the events of the film, for Peter to side against Cap with or without Tony's rhetorics. It's totally getting overblown. Given that each of the incidents (New York, Washington DC, Sokovia, Lagos) have had heavy media coverage, was the public's opinion of Captain America and the Avengers really even that positive at that point? Peter might be young and naive, but he's old enough to form an opinion, even if Tony only explained his side of the story. That last part you mention (threatening to tell Aunt May about Peter being Spider-Man) is borderline manipulative, but if you recall, Peter webs Tony's hand to the door to prevent him from trying. I thought that whole scene worked really well, as it ties back into his spiel about future generations during his MIT presentation. Essentially, Tony is grooming Spider-Man to be his successor, going to the length of upgrading his suit and giving him cool new gadgets.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:How is it overblown? It's being overblown because it's not like Tony held Aunt May at gunpoint and forced Peter to join him. Yes, he threatened to tell Aunt May about his identity, but that's about as far as it goes. It's certainly a grey area, but to Tony's credit, he does realize that he made a mistake after the airport fight.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I really, really, really want X-Men Apocalypse to be good. Or at least enjoyable. It's all well and good that all these MCU films are succeeding and we get to be all "these comic characters from my childhood are being done right!" but like, I was never a big fan of Cap or Iron Man or Thor or whatever growing up. The X-Men are my real faves. The X-Men are my home. Same here. The X-Men were extremely my poo poo growing up, and I read way more X-Men comics than anything else
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2016 22:46
|
|
)
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Actually what separates a hero from a villain is that a hero fights to do good and a villain fights to do evil. What about their moral code? Heroes have boundaries they do not cross. They have a point, you don't need to be a smug rear end in a top hat about it. Jonny_Rocket fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:You're wrong, he does. What defines "good" and "bad" if there isn't a set of moral codes or boundaries heroes won't cross? What makes a hero any better than a villain if he doesn't have a degree of restraint and empathy for others?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Having values isn't fundamentally good or evil, or heroic or villainous. Why not? So what you're saying is that heroes and villains are essentially the same but with opposite agendas?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:...Yes? In superhero comics, superheroes want to do good, and villains want to do bad. Obviously there's a whole spectrum of anti-heroes to confuse that, but it's kind of a basic distinction. But what defines "good" and "bad" if you're arguing that there's really no difference? It's human to have morals and boundaries, and it helps define what we consider a "good" person.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I'm not trying to be smug, but you want me to explain ethics to you. Ethics. Fair enough. But I absolutely don't agree with your argument that "Having values isn't fundamentally good or evil, or heroic or villainous". It absolutely does, otherwise why would people look up to superheroes if they weren't any better values or morals than their villains. It's a fundamental aspect of hero to have a set of morals and boundaries. Spider-Man would've killed Uncle Ben's killer if he hadn't chosen to be the bigger person and set an example.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Anyone but Green Goblin would be great. I agree - I'd personally love to see Kraven the Hunter and Mysterio
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Suicide Squad looks like it'll be a movie I'll rent on Redbox or watch on Netflix. It doesn't seem worth it to spend $20+ on what looks like an incredibly dull movie that's trying too hard to be "edgy." CzarChasm posted:Nothing. SS is unlikely to bomb - in terms of making money. Critical reviews won't change a drat thing. Case in point: Batman v Superman. If there's enough of brand recognition and they market the movie well enough (as the SS people have), there's still plenty of room for profit. Then again, I don't know what the SS team spent on marketing and such. Soonmot posted:I'm not spending money to see a movie, I'm spending money to spend time with my friends where afterwards we will talk and laugh about how good/bad it was. So...regardless if a movie is good or not, you're really paying for the experience? If the prices to see a movie were a bit cheaper, then sure - but at around $15+ for a single ticket? No thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Man your ticket prices suck. Here it's like $12 Canadian. Yeah, they do  I'd be seeing a lot more movies if it wasn't so drat expensive. I remember when it was like $5.50 - $6 for a movie when I was younger, and I felt like I saw a ton more movies then than I do now. Since the prices are astronomically higher than they were, I feel like I'm much more critical nowadays of what I want to spend money on seeing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Where the heck are you going? I get a ticket for literally half that. $7.50 and I can still get a drink with the left over $10 (but a small one because it's the fuckin movies). All of the options around me in Massachusetts are at least $10 or more, especially if it's in gimmicky 3D or IMAX
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I'm not sure which is more ridiculous. Either way is ridiculous and unnecessary for what seems like a completely mediocre film
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I have a radical theory that "cinematic universe" is just a glossed up marketing-speak for "a movie series, including spinoffs". Exactly. "Cinematic universe" is a marketing buzzword that's been diminished as the "it's all connected" slogan that Marvel's been touting isn't (and has never been) true. It's been strictly a one-way street - the movies don't acknowledge the TV shows, and the TV shows are completely at the mercy of whatever the movies are doing. Marvel has said that it's "next to impossible" since TV and movie schedules are so different, but I think it's more a problem/symptom of Ike Perlmutter and Kevin Feige's egos clashing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Dacap posted:Michael Chernus is playing Tinkerer in Spider-Man Homecoming How many villains do we need in a Spider-Man movie? Didn't they learn from Spider-Man 3 or more recently, The Amazing Spider-Man 2? Although, it might work if the Tinkerer works with the Vulture and is the one that helps create his wings or whatever. Time will tell I guess. Also, some Aquaman movie speculation regarding the villain: The Wrap posted:The Wrap has exclusively learned the bad guy of the movie will be Aquaman’s deadliest and most-famous opponent — Black Manta. “Aquaman” diehards should go nuts for the film’s adherence to DC lore — “Aquaman” first introduced the villain in 1967. In DC’s “New 52” reboot, Black Manta is a man in a suit with no innate super powers. Not surprising, I could see Black Manta translating well onto film. I'm not sure who else is in Aquaman's rogues gallery that would work, as I haven't really read any solo Aquaman comics. Jonny_Rocket fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:What if they finally do what people have been speculating since 2001 and have a little montage of Spidey taking out a few of his b-listers on his way to homecoming or something? Could be really fun if they do it right. That's true! I didn't really think about it that way - I totally agree it could be fun. On a side note - too bad we couldn't get someone like King Shark in the Aquaman movie, that'd be so awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Blazing Saddles is the greatest comedy of all time. I love Ghostbusters but it's not even the funniest movie Bill Murray has been in. Blazing Saddles is phenomenal, and one of the greatest comedies, but I also think Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Airplane, Animal House and The Big Lebowski belong in that league as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:I want pictures! Pictures of Spider-Man! As a parent of a child who passed away really young in the hospital, it always warms my heart to see these stars be real heroes and rolemodels and make these kids days a little better. It probably means so much to those kids to see Spider-Man in person. Tom Holland seems like a genuinely nice kid, I'm really looking forward to Spider-Man: Homecoming Codependent Poster posted:Children he probably put in the hospital himself! 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
X-O posted:He's right. Not really, no. Carol Danvers is only one of the many individuals who have taken the mantle of Captain Marvel.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:They're not making a movie about any of the others. Ever. You say that as if you know 100% for a fact they won't - when you really don't know jack poo poo. Stop being a smartass. At this point, it's all speculation - nothing should be treated as fact, including any bogus statements you say.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Someone's off their meds. I like that instead of trying to come up with a counter argument, you instead make fun of me. When you're ready to have a discussion like an adult, we'll talk. The likelihood that they'll do a film on any of the Captain Marvels is totally up in the air - nobody knows except for the people at Marvel Studios. Carol Danvers has one of the more compelling stories of the group (and brings diversity to the MCU), but that doesn't mean the others are completely out of the picture until said otherwise. Jonny_Rocket fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:*Captains Marvel I 100% agree. Mar-Vell's story is a bit convoluted and not as compelling as Carol Danvers, that's for sure. As I said eariler too, it helps diversify the MCU, which is primarily men.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:With the ways studios work regarding their franchises its honestly not really that much up in the air. They simply aren't going to have multiple Captain Marvels, its just not something they will do. They've hitched the wagon to Carol Danvers, at the very best you get a throwaway joke or cameo for any of the others. I agree with you - multiple Captain Marvels would most likely confuse the hell out of the regular movie-going audience. It's bad enough that we've had at least three different actors playing Spider-Man at this point. The point I was trying to make was that there's been multiple individuals with the Captain Marvel moniker, so Aphrodite saying that "Captain Marvel is female" is a false statement. If he had provided a sound argument like you did instead of saying "They're not making a movie about any of the others. Ever.", I wouldn't have gotten as annoyed as I did. His responses are super childish and it rubbed me the wrong way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Sefer posted:He said "Captain Marvel is a woman, you mean Shazam." There were other people named Captain Marvel that weren't women, but the only character in comics currently (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong on this) called Captain Marvel is a woman. The character that was being discussed was once called Captain Marvel and is currently called Shazam. His statement was absolutely true and, in that calling the characters by their current names instead of old names makes it easier to tell who is being discussed, helpful. He'd be just as justified in correcting someone who was talking about Carol but saying Ms Marvel; that used to be her name, but she has a different name now and someone else is using the Ms Marvel moniker. https://imgur.com/a/z232q She isn't the only one who had the name of Captain Marvel. It's been discussed to death at this point though, so let's just move on. I'm psyched that Happy Hogan is returning in Spider-Man, as I didn't think we would see any more of him since the Iron Man movies are pretty much done at this point. Yvonmukluk posted:They've gone on the record that they're skipping the origin this time around. Thankful this will be the case. Uncle Ben's death is almost as overdone as the death of Bruce Wayne's parents! At this point almost everyone knows the origin of Spider-Man, if they do anything at all it should be like how The Incredible Hulk handled it (in the beginning credits). Jonny_Rocket fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:I hope Homecoming is a really low stakes movie about Peter just trying to get to dance with MJ at the homecoming dance and between songs he keeps having to disappear to fight d-list villains to keep them from crashing the dance. Eventually he messes up and MJ finds out his secret identity but she's into it like in Ultimate Spider-Man. I don't want New York or God forbid, the entire world to be in danger. I just want to watch a teen comedy/romance with frequent superhero fights. Absolutely agree. If there's another one of those "end of the world" scenarios with a blue light beam in the sky, I'm just going to be like: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think some people have an issue distinguishing between "Aping themes and style inspiration from a genre" and "this action movie from 2014 was only minimally political and not released in the 1970's at all!" Pretty much. I love the movie, but there's no doubt that the final product is a watered down version of a  political thriller, if you could even call it that. It evoked some of the style, but had virtually nothing in regards to substance. Maybe people are triggered because Robert Redford (who has been in a bunch of political thrillers) was in the film and they were expecting more.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Sefer posted:Man, I specifically said that there had been past Captain Marvels, so I don't know why you think I didn't know about that one. Tense matters. There are others that had the name, but there's only one that has the name, and he was speaking in the present tense. Fair enough. My apologies - I wasn't up to my morning coffee quota, so I misread. I don't think Aphrodite was speaking in present tense, but whatever. Let's move on. Jonny_Rocket fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:If Marvel ever gets the FF movie rights back, they should do it as a period piece set in the 60's. Give it the hopeful "SUPER-Science of Tomorrow!" angle. Like Johnny Quest, except actually interesting and fun. I wish this type of Fantastic Four movie would get made - I love this concept. A period piece in the sixties with quirky/campy sci-fi elements would be great and I'm totally onboard
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Is anyone here excited for Doctor Strange? The more I've seen of the movie the more I want to see it. It looks much different than the standard Marvel fare.
Jonny_Rocket fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I'm glad you spent the time to find that panel so you could show me how much you missed the point. Maybe you should stop being such a sperglord over a few lines of dialogue.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Into Darkness is bad, but a modern bad movie is infinitely more watchable than classic Star Trek. I haven't seen Into Darkness, but this is yet another horrible opinion from Aphrodite. I can't say I'm surprised Having seen all of the classic Star Trek movies and the reboot, I can't judge on Into Darkness's quality but some of the classic films are great - namely Star Trek 2-4 and 6.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
This Mandarin argument is pretty dumb. They did a good interpretation of the character in Iron Man 3, why revisit the character so soon? I'd much rather see them tackle MODOK in the next movie and revisit AIM as a super shady organization.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
gently caress it, let's get Fing Fang Foom as the next big bad
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:He has a dragon tattoo, breathes fire, and most importantly wears pants. But Fing Fang Foom should be a giant dragon. I don't care if it's ridiculous - it would be wonderful to see on screen. I'm a huge fan of Godzilla and other kaiju films so I'm a sucker for that stuff. Realism be damned
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Mover posted:Strange poster for the IMAX midnight showing off of Scott Derrickson's twitter: This poster is amazing Unfortunately, I think these are being offered only to AMC Stubs members for the IMAX showings on the 3rd and 13th. According to the AMC rep I spoke with on Facebook: "The first color poster is for 11/3 and the black light poster will be given away on 11/13. Any AMC IMAX location showing DOCTOR STRANGE, will have the posters."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
King Burgundy posted:
That's a bummer  Normally I'd go to the Providence Place IMAX but I'm going to go to the AMC Lowes in Boston Common since they have IMAX (it's the closest one to me)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
I got some more updates regarding the Doctor Strange AMC IMAX-Exclusive poster. Image of both poster versions: http://imgur.com/vHULEW4 Apparently, according to the rep I spoke with on Facebook (Amanda), the first poster is not a blacklight poster - only the second one (being offered on November 13th). The color version is fine with me (I'm going on 11/3, I got my ticket this morning), as I don't have a blacklight anyways. It's still a really cool "out-there" design.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Man, if the early reviews aren't going "best marvel movie ever" then there must be some serious-rear end problems with it. Let's not jump to conclusions until the film is released, shall we? I always take early impressions with a grain of salt
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 19:09
|
|