|
Is it worth seeing this movie in IMAX?
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The last sequence of the movie is Logan going from The Wolverine, to Shane, to James Howlett, father and X-Man. It's legit. He's only an X-Man when he's hopped up on meds for five minutes, though. Otherwise he's just a character ~40 years past the point he should've been rebooted. E: The farther away from seeing this movie, the more I appreciate it as an Elseworlds title that doesn't actually fit into the story (Logan doesn't die in a shitheel world, just as Bruce Banner doesn't die like in Hulk: The End), and so can be effortlessly removed from memory. Can't wait for the next X-Men movie with a rebooted Wolverine. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:If DC takes anything from this it'll be 'we are justified in having Batman kill whoever he wants, and we should make it bloodier'. Is any superhero movie, regardless of side, really going to take much from this movie? It's not like the superhero genre is hurting from a lack of interest; your standard superhero isn't going to pivot into being aging and near-death like this one. They'll still make more money making their films PG13, too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
PassTheRemote posted:Funny story, when I went to see this there was a little card on the table near the electronic box office, stating "Hey guys, Logan is an R rated movie, with a lot of violence and cursing. Maybe not take the kids to see this one". I felt it was kinda sad that you needed to remind people that this movie is rated R and kids may not enjoy this. They have to do this because Logan is a superhero movie, and non-adults like superhero movies. So when movies are rated so that non-adults aren't allowed, they have to dissuade non-adults from trying. Ain't rocket science.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:He definitely does not. Sure he does. Bruce admits that he failed Superman by not believing and trusting him (3:05ish), and resolves to honor him and his methods in death by not murdering/branding people anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Eh, if she didn't start talking midway through the film, she would've spoken in the last scene as pathos. FilthyImp posted:I feel bad for all you monolingual güeros who couldn't understand what she was ranting about, because her dropping superspeed Spanish at Logan about how all he does is yell at her and be mean and not listen (in response to why she never said anything) is an extremely funny kid thing to do. There's this thing movies do when someone is speaking a language that the bulk of the audience doesn't understand, where they put text at the bottom in the language the audience does understand. Keep Logan in the dark, but we'd know, and that would've been funny.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Gyges posted:You got the gist of what she was yelling, so no subtitles was perfectly fine. Not really, though? It was kinda funny in a "wow she's speaking really fast in a language me and the other person don't understand" way, but it's a lot funnier that I know what she's saying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:The droid abduction scene in Star Wars is a lot funnier when you know what the Jawas are saying, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the movie will be better for dumbing it down for the audience. Eh, I compartmentalize when it comes to made up languages versus actual ones. It wouldn't mean poo poo to me what a Jawa is saying, because it's inherently gibberish and the actual point of it is being conveyed in a language I understand. Little girl losing her poo poo to someone who doesn't know what she's saying is funny. Little girl losing her poo poo to someone who doesn't know what she's saying, but you know precisely what she's saying, is funnier. (only vaguely related, why hasn't the phrase "dumbing down" as a negative gone the way of saying "M$"?)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:Now, do you need that explicitly stated for the scene to work? No, so why should it be any different for Logan? Because it'd be funnier to know what she's saying. Bonus amusement for her angrily pouring her heart out, and because Logan doesn't know the language, his only response is anger that she only just now decided to talk, and nothing about the legitimate grievance she has. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:How about this, learn a loving second language instead of being willfully ignorant to other's dialects and you can be in on the inside joke with the rest of us. On the big list of things I'm not going to do that a movie should do for me, learning a second language is somewhere on there. Fundamentally, the words behind her angry tirade brings as much content as her angry tirade itself. If you're letting half the scene's data fail to connect with your audience, there's a problem. I liked the scene, but I love it with the extra information. It's like a crazed Norwegian dude explaining to Kurt Russell that the dog isn't a dog, it's a Thing, it's just imitating a dog... times a thousand. ruddiger posted:You do realize how many people speak Spanish in this country, yes? And how some (most, depending on who you ask) white Americans react when they don't understand what's being spoken? I just shrug and say I barely speak Spanish. Like, I know worked-in-a-kitchen Spanish, but that's about it. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Sorry, I'm just not buying this rationalization. It's a weaker scene when you don't know her (entirely legitimate, entirely more emotionally engaging) speech. It's a good, funny scene when you don't know what she's saying, better/funnier when the audience does. Steve Yun posted:You think the Thing would have been a better movie with subtitles for the Norwegians? It's a big spoiler Even in 82, I don't think that the dog not really being a dog was a spoiler. But in general? It's always more fun when the audience knows more than the characters. It's funnier when Logan is focused on the speaking than what she's saying, when we know what she's saying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
^ Yeah, and how much more fun would it have been had your first viewing of that movie been, knowing that the dude in question was warning you (but not the characters) that the dog wasn't a dog? Always more fun when you're a bunch of steps ahead of the characters. Steve Yun posted:C'mon you gotta put up more of a fight than just making claims and opinions without building supporting arguments. The only supporting argument I need is that I liked the scene, and found it funnier, knowing what she said. Because it's rather lovely when you have to find 50% of a scene's weight from an outside source, as far as I'm concerned. And of course I want to know what the dude said to the Engineer. More information is always better. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Mar 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
ruddiger posted:Like I said, dumbing down the movie by literally spelling words out for people like you who cannot infer what's going on by just WATCHING WHAT'S ON SCREEN does not make it better or funnier. Infer, inschmer. The scene is more enjoyable/funnier/better when the audience is aware of both sides of the scene. Why rely on inference when the scene is richer for direct edification? ruddiger posted:It's not like this is some deep rear end movie either. I dunno, there's a lot of rationalizing the lack of detail in the scene on the basis that this movie is ~deeper~ and doesn't need it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 18:47
|
|