|
Groovelord Neato posted:i like how the trailers all made ultron seem so scary and imposing and then he's just quippy whedon character #3,729 in the movie. Right? Jesus christ could they not held themselves back a bit and not made the super death bot another joking rear end in a top hat who doesn't present a very serious sense of threat.
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
One of my favorite bits of HitB is when the point out that the titular Age of Ultron is like one weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
How do you think Steven Spielberg feels about directing a movie where his previous work has been re appropriated into soulless name drops?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:That film would be next to impossible to do without CGI nowadays. The original film was pretty much the last hurrah for a majority of World War 2 era aircraft on a large scale. They bought out nearly the entire antique collection from the Spanish airforce to get all the Heinkels and 109 lookalikes, and scavenged as many Spitfires as they physically could to get the massive dogfights. It always boggles my mind how a lot of major military hardware, tanks and planes and such, have become so rare after only about 90-70 years even though they were produced by tens of thousands during the wars. Like there's only around 25 British Mark I-V tanks left and 41 French Renault tanks when they originally had 4000, both are from World War 1. Likewise there's only 238 Spitfires in varying states of preservation, Wikipedia says 54 are airworthy, out of 20000 built. And the Spitfire is comparatively common, the Hawker Hurricane, actually the main British fighter in Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain, had 15000 produced and all of 13 are airworthy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Its a shame in a lot of ways, but sometimes the reason they get preserved can be interesting in and of themselves. For example, almost all of the Mark V tanks I mentioned that are around today are in Russia of all places, a number were sent there to try and assist the White armies against the Bolsheviks but after the Russian Civil war ended the Russians were much more lax about melting them down or re-purposing their components compared to be British themselves who got rid of just about all of the thousands they had after the war.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Sorry, I'll show myself out...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Josh would be a septic tank
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
As weird and funny as that interview was, gently caress me Todd Macfarlane sounded like such a hack before the interviewer butted in. Dark and edgy and R rated and dark and edgy and violent and supernatural and R rated and dark and edgy and a thriller and I'm going to make this on a laughably low budget and noone will care because Spawn died immediately when the clock turned to 00:00am January 1st 2000.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:I watched Bridge of Spies today. How the hell did Spielberg go from directing that to garbage like BFG and getting pegged for ready player one? Genuine answer, its probably because the shifting structures of Hollywood mean that almost every director around today, with some very specific exceptions (Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese), can no longer expect to get any funding at all for projects that aren't giant blockbusters or sequels to giant blockbusters without massive amounts of effort and time spent buttering up to gigantic studios. Allegedly Spielberg spent an immense amount of time fighting tooth and nail for the studios to produce Lincoln for a reasonable amount of money, which is crazy because he has one of the most solid track records of any director alive today and twenty years ago he would have had the clout to get most of his smaller more artistic projects like Amistad and Schindler's List off the ground without a massive amount of fuss, but in the current state of Hollywood, even someone like Spielberg has to loving break his back to get things like that produced now. If I had to guess I'd say that directing poo poo like Ready Player One is a trade off so that he can have a budget to make a film he actually cares about soon after, basically he's been brought down to Colin Trevorrow levels of hackery to get something he might actually care about made.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
People sure do get older due to the implacable passage of time, huh.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i believe the point is they look far younger than their chronological age would suggest. When you turn forty you don't instantly transform into a scarecrow. Emma Thompson is a better example of someone who looks absurdly good for her age.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I hate people who provide deep analysis of Disney cartoons for children regardless of their gender. The sociological stuff behind Disney films are really interesting, and they obviously wanted to be taken super seriously around the time they made Pocahontas otherwise they wouldn't have chosen such a ludicrously loaded historical subject to make a movie out of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Everything? I had to confront the painful truth that RLM themselves were also endlessly trash. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Oh my god she looks like she's about to stab him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
I'm actually quite enjoying Jenny's Screenjunkies stuff, that cosplay video and this one about the Han Solo movie clusterfuck are pretty funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKDfUmZG1RM
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
In case anyone missed it, yes Tommy Wiseau wears a black tank top in The Room. Jesus its uncanny how that really does seem to be an almost spot-on trope.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Irradiation posted:She's responsible for a bunch of My Little Pony fan poo poo so yes she can be hated. Nobody cares about My Little Pony fans anymore, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Arcsquad12 posted:It's a bad adaptation This is a pretty meaningless statement TBH, for example just about every single Kubrick movie was a bad adaption but they were pretty loving kickass films. And when Steven King put his weight behind a good adaption (re: close to the book) of the Shining it sucked.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
I'm going to be an annoying contrarian, I saw Dunkirk yesterday and it was just kind of... meh? It was fine mostly but felt like a fairly by the numbers war movie without much to make it stand out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Blind Sally posted:eh, there are enough reviewers who weren't terribly impressed with Dunkirk that this isn't that contrarian? a lot of criticism i've heard deals with Nolan's timeline editing and schlocky feel-good moments. Really? everything I've read was very positive. I don't mind the timeline but my biggest problems were the characters felt really sketchily drawn, especially compared to stuff like Flags of our Fathers or Saving Private Ryan while overall it sort of just went through the usual motions of a World War 2 movie, you know the kind of thing, lots of selfless, heroic stuff where one plane comes in and saves tons of people or a 60 year old man and a 16 year old kid pack 20 men on their little hobby boat, a few scenes where the soldiers start to fight and turn on each other when things are extremely tense, a couple of brave and capable commanders to exposite to the audience, a bit of reflection on the tragedy of war, but ending with some inspirational speech about fighting for freedom in the face of overwhelming darkness, that sort of thing. I know a lot people are arguing that Nolan wanted to concentrate on the moment to moment survival and terror of the situation that people experienced, but I think he tripped himself up by relying so much on actual hardware and eschewing CGI, usually I'd love that kind of thing but when you read about actual accounts from Dunkirk there were far more men stuck on the beaches, planes fighting in the sky for both sides and large naval vessels coming and going to Dunkirk to retrieve the army. I know its tough but I feel that the film didn't really capture that sense of scale that you get reading the history, which is a strange complaint since usually modern Hollywood gets that sort of thing down even if they fail everywhere else. The PG-13 rating might have hamstrung what they could show, certainly something as raw and horrifying as the Normandy landing in Ryan was not on the cards. Still; there was a lot of good stuff, the scenes of boats being downed and people desperately trying to claw their way out, sometimes in pitch darkness, were really gripping. I also though Cillian Murphy did a good job in the film.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Stalingrad is a good war movie. If you want a war movie like no other watch Come and See.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
I was suprised to see how poorly the newest Transformers movie did, 250 million budget but only 570 million return. I know in any other context it would make absolutely no sense to be saying 'only' but you know how Hollywood is. Quantum of Phallus posted:I watched the Ghost in the Shell movie that nobody in the world saw. It wasn't really bad. The twist is dumb as gently caress but the production design is good and Takeshi Kitano owns in literally anything he's in so that's good. The production design wasn't really that good, it was flashy but it apes a lot of the original without really understanding how it worked. It really, really reminded me of a film from 2005 called Aeon Flux, which was also a weird sci-fi vehicle based on a well regarded animation for a female lead (Charlize Theron) with a few cool visuals and attempts at deeper meaning that was overall kind of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Disney try to stagger releases so they don't compete, Summer already had Pirates 5 and Cars 3 ( Yes that was it. It was super weird and had a really unique style of ultra elongated characters with super defined facial features. The creator did a pretty cool segment of the animatrix too. Also tons of weird sex stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2017 23:33
|
|
)
|
WampaLord posted:For the record, I mostly agree with your overall point, but from what I'm hearing, Dark Tower is just straight up bad and also a bad adaptation. Eh, seeing Watchmen it felt to me that they weren't really able to handle the implications of the story.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:Dunkirk is a Nolan film. I feel like they would have done it by now, they're usually fairly rapid to get out reviews of big 'event' movies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Me too. The ending was better in the sense that it was less campy and comic booky, but it wasn't really any different in terms of what happens or why it happens, they just removed the most unbelievable elements for realism sake. Looking back I'm actually a bit sad they shied from that piece of vintage Alan Moore weirdness, its one of the things that gives his work its charm, and overall I think the Watchmen movie is too boring of an adaption of the book.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:For a superhero comic, it wasn't really super weird up until that point, so the weird ending doesn't fit well with the rest of it. I remember someone offered a interpretation of the whole thing, that it was intentionally a comic solution from a comic book character (Ozymandias) for a huge real life problem (the Cold war and the prospect of nuclear conflict). In that regard Dr Manhattan and the other characters are similar, outlandish comic book tropes clashing with real world problems.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
PostNouveau posted:It's still an insane comic-book solution in the movie because the fundamental core of it is "I'll kill millions to unite humanity against a common enemy." I know, but its kind of a go big or go home situation for me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 17:15
|
|