|
She-Hulk would work perfectly well as a workplace comedy or as a legal drama even without her ties to the Hulk being mentioned, although those ties certainly exist. (I kind of like the idea of a fairly serious MCU legal drama series starring Jennifer Walters that mostly only hints at the idea that she's She-Hulk and constantly teases the audience with the idea that maybe this time she's actually going to Hulk out and punch opposing counsel.) Also, since Deadpool proved the MCU can go R-rated, I don't see why they couldn't go the other way around and have a G-rated Squirrel Girl movie aimed at kids.
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
X-O posted:Deadpool did not prove that because Deadpool is not in the MCU. I did not know that. Maybe the fact that I didn't know that and probably nobody else does either makes me still right? I'm honestly not sure!
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
AnonSpore posted:Wait I thought Marvel was the evil corporate fatcat who strangled the director and forced everyone to follow the Big Picture and DC was the artistic nurturer who gave directors free reign Marvel is definitely demanding that its directors make movies that fit into their vision. I guess the main difference is that Marvel's vision has proven to be insanely popular and successful. Meanwhile, DC appears from the outside to be committed to pushing grim and joyless darkfests no matter how much people say "WE WANT SUPERHEROES TO BE FUN", so, people aren't that enthused about whoever actually makes the decisions. (Like, as far as I can see people have been making fun of DC for being grim and joyless for over a decade now and they still refuse to pivot.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
I do kind of wonder if "every man in movies is incredibly jacked" is going to be a permanent thing because Hollywood can afford to just make having a near-flawless body a prerequisite, or if the style will change again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
Shazam would be a really good opportunity for a fun, smart movie about how bright, cheerful, optimistic, whimsical things aren't necessarily less "mature" than dark, cynical, gritty things, and in fact the opposite is often true. Which is why DC will never do one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:I doubt that this will ruin anyone's day, but just a heads up - The Blu-ray version of Cap 3 does NOT include the Thor short. The 3D Combo and iTunes versions comes with a code for the short. If it isn't actually on the disc I won't be watching it that way either way, so...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
I have to admit, I really would like to go ahead and get to the Marvel movies that won't be about fairly generic white guys with the standard list of movie protagonist problems. Like, I'm a big fan but after a while the formula starts to become more apparent. If I ever see Robert Downey, Jr.'s Tony Stark again I'd prefer it to be in a scenario like "Tony Stark becomes mentor to the new Iron Man, a disturbed black teenage girl who just built a functioning suit of Iron Man armor in her dorm room." God, I hope Captain Marvel is just exceptional.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
I thought it was pretty good, although I kind of wish they hadn't put Mikkelsen in the baggy eyes of being obviously evil. It feels like it would have suited his gimmick better to be sort of obnoxiously perfect like a Greek statue until his facade started to crack off. As it was it has hard to take his appeal to Strange seriously when he was color-coded as the villain. Well, that and all the murders; those really hurt his case, too. Other than that, and the fact that Mordo dropped down into petty dickery too quickly to really make sense, really good, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
MCU films so far are all about handsome white men who have the kind of problems you have if you're a handsome white man. I'm looking forward to the promised shaking up of that aspect of formula, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
All I know about Ronan is that the Pie Maker was trying to blow up a planet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
I think a better way to say it is that Marvel made a bunch of people want a team-up movie between RDJ's Iron Man, Evans' Captain America, Hemsworth's Thor, Johannsen's Black Widow, and a Hulk, and then gave them one after they already wanted it. DC is struggling because they are trying to sell Justice League to people who don't have that pre-established desire to see it (and because they continue re-using the same aesthetic that people who don't like DC movies hate so much no matter how much they complain).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
The moral of the story is that trying to come up with reasons why the thing you just said wasn't stupid and lovely inevitably does more to make you a terrible person than whatever you actually said.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:Haha what? Ladies have always found Peter attractive. There's really no right way to do this, because "Peter Parker is an unlucky nerd with career problems and an annoying boss" and "Peter Parker is a super-genius with incredible athletic ability, an amazingly-hot body, and connections to everybody but God" are both always going to be true and in superposition.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
This is what I mean by "constant superposition."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:All I know about TTG is that is seems to be 90% of CN's programming now. Yeah, nobody else really knows why that is, either.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Okay, but who's Archie Goodwin?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Yeah, frankly, I love classic detection. Who could we get as John Appleby or <checks list of classic detectives> Lord Peter Wimsey?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Honestly, the real problem with Green Lantern for me is how so many of his stories climax with him willpowering harder until the problem is solved.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:I forget how the exact argument went but something something Tony Stark ends up unwittingly creating the same kind of philosophy and control that Hydra was about and ultimately he was the villain of the MCU. Also Ultron was either an example of this, or he represented Marxism. Somehow. It's closer to "Tony makes weapons, so he is a symbol for the military-industrial complex, and is therefore personally responsible for all the evils involved in that, and HYDRA is part of that, so Tony is responsible for that; therefore Tony Stark is the leader of HYDRA."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
I like to assume that everybody at the Daily Planet totally knows and that being assigned to Perry White's floor means that you have just been approved for a dual major in journalism and keeping secrets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Most of the complaints I've heard are basically "it's a book about how having nothing meaningful in your life except consuming the media people sell you and making that the basis of your identity is super cool."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
People are allowed to like Aquaman just because of his hotness if they want. It is permitted.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Basically, it's a problem because they made a movie about how a bunch of men couldn't treat a lady like a grown-up, and how that's bad, instead of actually following through on that logic and making a movie about a grown-up tiny lady. EDIT: Like, they literally made ten movies starring white guys named Chris before they got around to having a movie starring a woman. That is not a joke or an exaggeration. That is an accurate description of how off the balance is, and when things are that off balance, making a movie about how some more white guys should maybe, in theory, one day treat women as equals is like agreeing to think about one day stopping beating your wife.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 07:46
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Doesn't Scott tell Hank something like "I'm not the person for this job. Have her do it! She's qualified and wants to!" He's not holding her back or not treating her like a grown-up. Hank just doesn't want to risk Hope's life and lose her like he lost his wife, which, while holding her back, is understandable. You don't get to cite reasons in the story for why Hope doesn't get to wear the suit, because those reasons are made up. They came up with the reasons after they made the decision to make yet another movie that doesn't have a female main character.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Well, not exactly. My point is that the decision to make a movie about Ant-Not-Woman came first, and that anything made up after that can't be used to justify that decision.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
If they ever do a She-Hulk series I honestly want it to be an insane legal drama in the superhero world that has superhero stuff going on, but that avoids having Jennifer Rogers transform for like, two whole seasons. Just kind of vaguely refer to the idea that she's perfectly capable in a hero fight, or that you wouldn't like her when she's angry, and dance coyly around the idea instead of making it a focus of the show from the start.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:"What if we did a superhero show but coyly tapdanced around showing the titular character doing anything super for a couple seasons" sounds insanely dumb. Like it's bad enough that the Marvel Netflix shows constantly avoid naming any of the Avengers instead of constantly giving them nicknames like "the big green guy." I have to admit, I'm way more interested in the "lawyer to superheroes" aspect of the character than her actually being one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
That does sound cool but I don't think they have the budget for an acceptable eight-foot protagonist in every episode. And once you've established that she isn't She-Hulk all the time, I think the running gag where She-Hulk takes two seasons to actually show up in that form on her own show is funnier than having a couple of TV-budget fight scenes in the first season.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
It seems like there's some confusion over whether the primary attribute of a jock is "enjoys physical activities" or "knows how to talk to girls."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Honestly, the fact that Erik specifically points out that loads of their stuff is stolen is probably another reason why the British Museum wouldn't want to be involved.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Heathen posted:I know Wakanda is advanced but this traditional ceremony didn't have ancient kings hitching a ride in a helicopter in the past. I mean... are you sure? The gap between Wakanda and everybody else is narrowing, which means it used to be even bigger. I get the feeling they've had flying machines for a long while now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:From W’kabi's POV Killmonger is the legitimate Black Panther. He fought T’challa in ritual combat and won. Yes, there is the technicality that T’challa actually survived the fall, but that's a technicality the others cling to because they really, really don't want Killmonger to be king. So the usurper shows up, illegally using the Black Panther armour, kills some of his men (those aircraft have pilots!) and demands to be made back into king, gently caress all that ritual combat business, and the legitimate king - who you agree with anyway - tells him to go stab that dude, whose orders do you follow? I mean, it's all technicalities. The rules say that if you challenge for the throne, it's not over until the previous king yields or dies, and that didn't happen. Note that there were not a lot of people calling for the military to ignore the results of the last American election and regard Hillary Clinton as president even though Trump only won on a technicality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I mean the rules do say that but there's gotta be a lot of times where the loser goes down the waterfall and they never find the body. Like if Killmonger went over the cliff instead and reappeared a few days later having used a stolen heart-shaped herb and donning royal armour, there would be no question that if the royal guard fights on T'Challa's behalf they'll be correctly fulfilling their duty. It's not that W'Kabi is right, it's that the rules are at least ambiguous, and arguably he follows their spirit better than the Dora Milaje. I mean, not really? The spirit of the rules is that the throne goes to somebody who has either the direct approval or at least the tacit acceptance of all five tribes. Erik doesn't have that because while the rules technically allow him to challenge literally nobody there knows who he is, and his policies are incredibly unpopular. Nobody actually wants him as king. The Trump comparison really is an apt one, since Trump won the electoral college and is the winner according to the rules, but lost the popular vote and doesn't have the kind of popular acceptance that the process is supposed to measure in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
If nothing else I think it would be okay to just enjoy the first mostly-black blockbuster for a while, hand it all the Oscars, and then maybe start looking at all the ways it's imperfectly woke around, say, a year from now. Especially because most of the hot takes coming out this week are either bad, or include enough bad stuff to fill space that it's hard for me to take the reasonable half of their arguments seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
I mean, I feel like: 1) Armed revolution by people of color is the morally and practically correct solution to the world's problems. 2) People making movies have a moral obligation to present armed revolution as heroic and correct. 3) The capitalistic forces controlling this movie are unwilling to do this. 4) So they created an armed revolutionist who is also a ruthless and hate-filled murderer, because they were unwilling to present the ideology without covering it in something completely unpalatable. ...is a valid train of logic, even if I don't agree with the premises.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
Arist posted:People are skipping straight to "armed revolution by the underclasses is always a moral good" and it's weird as hell. Pretty much, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
I mean, it has more to do with how much the conversation is dominated by crazy people than how many of them there technically are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
I mean, the profits movies make in general keep going up, so the most profitable movies ever made generally seem to be the last couple of major summer blockbuster types, no matter what they were about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I would've been fine with him being heroic if he had more of an arc (changing his worldview after figuring out how great Wakanda is and realizing how lovely the CIA and the US are in comparison) and he died to save it instead of just being fine. I feel like that's giving him too much place in a movie that's not about him. It's not Everett Ross, Black Panther's Pal, it's Black Panther, and so Ross doesn't need to spend minutes on his own journey of discovery. It's a pretty subtle way to handle it, subtle enough that I am possibly just reading stuff into what was actually just a bunch of stuff that wound up being in the movie for reasons, but I'm going to assume it was intentional. Specifically, I'm going to assume it was intentional that there's a white guy from the CIA who nobody exactly likes or trusts, but who winds up in the middle of all this for vague everyman hero reasons, reveals in a very understated moment that oh yeah, this is exactly what the CIA trained the villain to do (which nobody really reacts to because it's not new information to them), and then finds that ultimately his place in life is to be helpful by using his skills in the ways that smarter black characters direct him to. Some people think that somebody should have directly called out the CIA as responsible for this, but I think they way they handled it is better and lets them get a more direct thrust into the film under the radar.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Honestly, the use of a white CIA character, and the very understated mention of the CIA's underhanded tactics, is an interesting choice, and given the context of this movie and the team behind it, I'm going to assume it was deliberate. What does it mean that they deliberately used Ross in this situation, and in this way (if your answer implies that the movie is insufficiently woke for your standards please answer in some other thread)? ps my answer is "doing it very subtly let them get a huge dig at the US government in without having to explain themselves to any producers"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2018 02:06
|
|