|
The movie must be really something when all the praise is so tepid and oddly desperate. You must enjoy it. Rolling Stones posted:Let's face it: No one gave half a drat about Guardians of the Galaxy before the bastard child of the Marvel Cinematic Universe hit the multiplex in 2014. Then we all effing loved it. So what if the comic book, created in 1969, felt like Avengers-lite on the page; on screen, it achieved a near-perfect comic lift-off, thanks to cowriter-director James Gunn throwing out the rulebook invented to protect major Hollywood investments and just letting the craziness rip. You could see that anarchic spirit in the now-iconic image of Chris Pratt, in his breakthrough performance as wannabe Star Lord Peter Quill, busting dance moves in space to an Awesome Mixtape of 1970's pop tunes. (It was left to him by his dying mom; we'll get to his dad in a second.) GotG scored a worldwide box-office jackpot of $773 million by showing us how throwaway charm and runaway silliness could be just the antidote to the usual Hollywood formula. There had to be a sequel.
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
So was it better than 2005's Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:That's a low bar to clear. Actually surprisingly high. It easily beats out GOTG1 on direction, design, and cinematography.  
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
All these complex summations of the character arcs does not make them any better. It was bad. All the emphasis on the characters yet they're so cookie-cutter. The lack of enthusiasm despite all the praise was indeed accurate of the experience.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
e: nah
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:33 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Counterpoint: you may just not want to enjoy the movie and have defined the characters as cookie-cutter, and so are not willing to put in the effort to look at the characters and read their arcs. Characters are just devices for telling stories, exploring sentiments and themes, etc. And the story they play out in is just so utterly unremarkable. A manchild space adventurer ends up mostly staying the same, with a lot of ancillary bullshit. "If you kill me, you'll end up being just like everybody else!" "What's so wrong about that?" Not very riveting stuff. The most interesting thing about GotG2 was seeing a Marvel movie start straight-up borrowing plot points, themes, and even scenes from Man of Steel - all the stuff with Ego ends up recalling that movie. The scene of a father-figure recounting a history of glory, colonization, and death to his estranged son was particularly blatant. It doesn't come close to it, but I guess I should commend them for being inspired by such a good movie. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:But that's not the character arc This is all incredibly basic stuff. Vol. 2's inspiration, Man of Steel, already did all that and more. Like that scene of Kurt Russell pontificating about how he's not alone with very undynamic shots and set just reminds one how better the equivalent sequences with Jor-El and Zod were.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:If it's so basic, why are you seemingly incapable of reading it? You said "it's a movie about a man-child not changing". You're loving wrong. I gave you an actual interpretation that considers, you know, the movie I watched. If you want an incredibly original and complex character study, why are you watching a movie based on comic books, or actively comparing it to a worse comic book movie? I understand it perfectly, and I agree with your reading. It's just very boring. I make comparisons to Man of Steel because it's a pretty obvious inspiration for Vol 2. Ego recreating the past with technological dioramas is straight up taken from it.  Franchescanado posted:It's good to have a movie tackle a simple theme in new and interesting ways with fun characters. If that's not what you wanted, that's a different story, but it's fruitless to try and ask the sci-fi action comedy to make you re-evaluate the human condition, or to try and label it on where it lands on a scale of complexity. You're a praising the movie's writing, directing, and acting, but then appending that it doesn't need to be good, that sci-fi doesn't need to make you evaluate the human condition. Isn't that what you were just praising the movie for doing? Evaluating the human condition? BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 00:10 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Solvalou posted:Holy poo poo, you're serious about this nonsense you're spewing, aren't you? It's not a particularly radical opinion to note that Man of Steel is visually speaking probably the best of all superhero movies. You don't even need to like Zack Snyder to admit that he's a great visual stylist. It's also not very radical to note that the GotG movies aren't particularly good looking despite all the colourful sci-fi imagery - the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie for example looks superior (also looks funnier, as a comedy). Also, 
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Even Darkman beats Man of Steel visually. How so? Man of Steel is a great-looking movie. You don't like it, but to deny it's technical accomplishments is just silly. The GotG movies are praised for being colourful, but it actually gets quite dull, and is mostly just adequate. Like here's an alien city under attack, and it looks like somebody clicked on a disaster while playing SimCity:  Even GotG2's high-lights, like the body-warping hyperspace pinball or or the arrow massacre, aren't that good. The latter for example would've been improved by dropping the pointless slow-mo walk and music. Franchescanado posted:Weird, I wonder if they've ever worked together before. Yes, that's my point. Now that Gunn has made a movie that bears some resemblance to a movie made by his acquaintance and one-time coworker, the logical thing is to assume that it was an influence. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:11 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Yeah, I looked into this and it's not true. When you posted screen caps in the comic book movie thread, they were all met with a chorus of "Wow, I remember this movie looking a lot brighter in theatres!" and they're right. I went and checked out the scenes you capped on Netflix on an actual television and the difference is literally night and day. Everything is brighter, the colours pop, the contrast is better. Yeah, it was unfair that way. It's definitely better, but it doesn't really cover for how uninventive the movie's visuals and their underlying story are. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Yes, of course, this is 100% true if you ignore the things the movie shows and tells you. Totally agreed on that. ...What visual and narrative inventiveness is being ignored? Basically anyone you ask is going to agree that these movies are a bit by-the-numbers.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Uhm...no? All the reviews I've read and people I've talked to, even those otherwise critical of the movie, have pointed out how colorful and good looking the movie was. Well, I wrote that it was visually and narrative uninventive, not that it wasn't colourful and good-looking. These are two colourful and decent-looking movies, but their visuals and the story they're used to tell are uninspiring.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Well, you keep using terms like "uninventive", "unimaginative", and "uninspiring" to describe your subjective opinion of the film. What can I say except I (and, obviously, a lot of people) disagree with you? Things like the use of colour and movement, that establishing shot of Knowhere, the Milano leaving Morag, I find them all impressive, imaginative, and inventive. And you've shown that you're just unwilling to engage with the film on anything but the most superficial narrative level, so it's no wonder you don't find it inspiring. You're insisting it's all a subjective opinion, but it's very easy to point out how lame GotG's sci-fi vision is. GotG 1 is a movie about a rag-tag bunch of misfits stopping a terrorist attack, in space. It's a very prosaic movie. You're praising technically accomplished but otherwise workmanlike efforts. The establishing shot of Knowhere in GotG1 is a good example of something that is on a technical level very good, but in design and effect completely pedestrian. The character's stare at in awe, but for some reason the visual effects team stuck a bunch of nebula (lol) in the shot to obscure it and to prevent proper contrast. So the effect is uninspiring despite the fact that the audience is looking at a colossal, severed head in space. Examples from GotG2 would have to include that scene where Ego is pontificating about how he's not alone in the universe when his villainy is revealed,for one. All the shots and the sets do very little to accentuate the emotion and horror of the scene (that zoom on Star-Lord is just bad). Sure, the set looks nice, the directing is there, the acting is sufficient, but better things have been done with cinema.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Again, because every time anyone tries to point out anything deeper going on in the movie you just plug your ears and say, "No, it's dumb and facile and shallow!" You're appealing to the "deeper" things in these movies when they very much thrive on being superficial - like already pointed out, it's a movie about not being egotistic where the villain that represents egotism is called Ego. The reading that the movie is about not being egotistic is correct. The movie's way of delivering that is what's uninspiring. The movie plays on the same themes as Man of Steel, where the hero possessing special genetic heritage is a key part in the villain's plan to twist to realize a nightmarish fantasy of domination, and made that story really soar. Outside of comic book movies, I could point to Er Ist Wieder Da, which a comedy that also explored those themes of ego and domination. It achieved the impossible and managed to make Hitler scary, and it's still a comedy. . Phylodox posted:Actually it looks awesome. It's in a nebula because that's part of Guardians of the Galaxy's aesthetic: space isn't cold and black and empty, it's filled with trippy, shifting, amazing colours. And the nebula barely obscures anything. I have no idea what you're talking about there. That must be the lovely computer monitor glitch or something.  It looks decent, but it's not trippy, shifting, or amazingly colourful. Notice how the giant head is in the same colour tones as the nebula, and it melds into the fog, obscuring it. There's no effective contrast to really sell the concept. It looks decent, and that's it. Deathwing posted:Okay, great, you've said this several ways, several times now. Anything else? 
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I'm talking about the endless, circular discussions about the original. I won't be seeing Vol. 2 until next week. Until then, I'll just have to take everyone else's word that you're wrong about this one, too. There's not odd with noting that a movie about egotism with a villain named Ego is somewhat superficial. And more so, emphais on surface and image is not a negative for a visual medium. You seem to be insistent that i'm wrong, when I'm actually agreeing with the reading that the movie is about egotism. It's just a very uninspiring movie about egotism. Phylodox posted:It's a giant, disembodied organic-mechanical god skull bathed in brilliant turquoise and orange galactic clouds, twinkling city lights dotting its surface and bright light pouring out of its empty eye sockets. It's like a Kirby panel come to life. And that's with the lovely computer monitor appearance. It looks even better on television. Absolutely stunning on a movie screen. Well you've made a concrete statement, but it doesnt' actually look like a Kirby panel. Kirby would use different flat colours to create contrasting and distinct shapes, with emphasis on geometric forms. You're too busy hyperventilating about the concept of the image to just it's use of space, colour, etc.   The shot of Knowhere on the other hand is just too busy with the nebula. The movie in general is bad with framing this stuff. You can also compare it to the concept art.   Also, I didn't post a poor-quality version. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:40 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:And there's nothing wrong with the framing or contrast. Knowhere is perfectly discernible for what it is, while still looking spooky and mysterious. The issues with framing and contrast have been pointed out - the lack of negative space or colour contrast means that it's subject is muddled and vague, while still lookig decent. When pointed out that it doesn't look like Jack Kirby art, you're now trying to abstract his very discernible style into "trippy, cosmic subject matter". Knowhere isn't spooky and mysterious in the movie, it's an extremely prosaic mining operation/resort.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You said it wasn't trippy. That was your original assertion. I said it (the subject matter) looked like something out of a Jack Kirby panel. I guess I needed to say "The subject matter looks like something Jack Kirby would have loved to have drawn, but does not look exactly like a drawn, static panel, because it is in a different medium, and so places different requirements upon the artist." It's not very trippy. Jack Kirby would use clashing, contrasting colours and shapes for a trippy effect, with little space for the eye to relax. The shot of Knowhere is framed so that it's subject is at a reasonable distance (Kirby loves his dominating close-ups) and melds into the environment that's mostly dominated by a single colour, without many contrasts. Also, it's a static shot so it very much resembles a comic book panel in a generic sense, so the difference in medium is negligible. Phylodox posted:It's where the heroes go to learn the hidden history of the film's McGuffin, bestowed upon them by a mysterious, possibly nefarious stranger. They're flying into the unknown. Knowhere is just a fairly generic city in space, if you'll forgive the oxymoron. This is what it looks like:  The concept could be improved by making it an entire bod instead of just a head, and play on that.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You're just being, like, super pedantic. You've gotten to the point where you're arguing that it doesn't look trippy because it doesn't literally resemble a Jack Kirby panel out of a comic book, as though that's the only acceptable definition of "trippy". I pointed out why the shot of Knowhere isn't trippy and why Jack Kirby's art was. The actual definition of "trippy" is that it's akin to the hallucinatory effect of a psychedelic drug Again, you're overdescribing the basic concept and summary of what's happening on screen, without any references to cinematography or direction. Knowhere is an entirely prosaic place, the fact that it's a giant head is minimally utilized, with the only real effect is the mining drone chase/battle. It's not like it was a particularly stunning concept in the original comics; them having to navigate a giant body would have been much more interesting. Franchescanado posted:For emphasis, I really can't name creative details from any other Marvel movie or DCU that surpasses that without looking out of GotG franchise. Well, the dirty secret of these movies is that they only get the praise they do because they're not judged in relation to other movies. There are plenty of sequences in movies, and even comic book movies, that better than merely adequate sequences like Knowhere. You can compare it to the Krypton sequence in Man of Steel, with it's overwhelming visual splendor that is disorienting and hallucinatory.   Or the delighful planet factory sequence in the painfully mediocre Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:   Comparing things like GotG2's face-warping hyperspace pinball to other movies, it's reaching towards HItch-Hiker's surprisingly high standard of visuals. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 08:20 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I had a more emotional connection to GOTG than both of those movies combined. GOTG overall was a great film experience, and one I enjoy revisiting every once in a while. Well yes, that is because of the safe and non-threatening direction and visuals. It's perfectly indicative of these movies. e: CARL MARK FORCE IV posted:e: Did any Iain M Banks fans think that the Sovereign was supposed to be a broad caricature of The Culture? Not really. What lines were those? BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 11:35 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:It looks like a blacklight poster you'd see in a head shop. Trippiness does not begin and end with Jack Kirby. You're just repeating that it's trippy and inspiring because "there's a skull of a dead god". It's actually a pretty sedate sequence despite the concept, and as mentioned the framing, use of negative space, and colour make it unimpressive. Mulva posted:Did MoS look that lovely originally or is that more of his terrible screen cap degradation? Franchescanado posted:I swear I'm not being a contrarian for the sake of it when I say that those two shots from MoS are ugly. The second one has a nice green with uses of red, but it's pretty basic framing and it's Color Theory 101. You just need a color wheel for them. What exactly is ugly about them? How the harsh light and overbearing shadows emphasise the nightmarish, dystopic feeling of Krypton? It's both splendid and uncomfortable. That's the effect. Franchescanado posted:but then I'd lean back towards Guardians strong-point, which is character interaction beyond quips and arguments, where they aren't trying to please the audience every second, where the jokes (while not necessarily all landing), are all well within the characterization, and where they actually feel like there is relationship developing, where personalities clash. MoS and HG2G, the movies you keep wanting to jerk off, don't even manage that. In fact, HG2G wasn't as good as the book because it lost the charming character interactions and wit that makes them work in the book. Neither GotG movie has good writing or characters. The dialogue for example is extremely amateurish. Meta-ironic mumbling like the Taserface exchange is just bad. And then you just get weird and conspiratorial. Zack Snyder "just directs" and steals his shots from comic books? You're appealing to James Gunn's immense passion, that he both wrote, directed, and produced, but that's hardly impressive when the result is rather mediocre franchise sci-fi. Yeah, Marc F. Adler spent almost a decade developing, writing, and then directing and producing Delgo, so what? You seem to have created some fantasy about heroic Gunn and devilish no-good Snyder. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:18 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:It's pretty damned impressive. You pretty obviously want a I don't want the movie to do anything. I've just observed whats's in the movie. I've also observed the framing, colouring, composition, but you seem to be flabbergasted by just the concept of a giant head in space. It's only as intriguing as it's presented, which is not very. That's why it's even less impressive when they enter the generic sci-fi city (again, forgive the oxymoron) inside it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:15 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Poorly. And, frankly, with an obvious bias. I've been very accurate. It's not very hard to note things like how the visual and narrative concepts of the GOTG movies are average at best, like how Star-Lord's/Yondu's ships, the space prison, and Knowhere form this really samey 'gritty' aesthetic, or how the one really intriguing sci-fi sequence (Star-Lord entering Morag) is just a set-up for a joke about how the movie isn't like that. With GOTG2 it's equally obvious despite the more outlandish ideas, because you can compare it to it's inspiration with MoS - the nightmare vision shown by the villain for example is utterly underwhelming. Space being colourful isnt a particularly daring or exciting concept, compared to Kirby's psychedelia or NASA's awe-inspiring fabrications. Groovelord Neato posted:i hate comic books. Maybe you haven't just read good ones? I recommend classics like Valerian and Laureline. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:31 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Not really? The Kyln is very red, angular, industrial looking. Knowhere is colder, more expansive, cluttered, filled with garish neon signs. They're both kind of dirty looking, I guess? You seem to be confused, because both the space prison and Knowhere are industrial in nature. They're both visually extremely busy, with omnipresent fog/steam about, and lit with alternating murk and hazy glow. Star-Lord's/Yondu's ships are the same way inside. The Morag scene is distinguished being the single sequence where the movie evokes mystery and grandeur, and the point of it is to set up a joke about how the movie is not like that. Phylodox posted:"Space being colourful isn't exciting because it is not exactly like these things, one of which is extremely similar and an obvious inspiration." Your style of criticism is very reactive, you're just limply trying to swat any criticism that come GotG's way, so you end up just nuh-uhing to everything. I end up having more appreciation for GotG as a movie, whose accomplishments are in creating highly detailed and polished if generic sci-fi environments. GotG movies don't have very exciting character designs. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 15:19 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Knowhere doesn't look industrial. It looks more like, as they say in the film, a lawless frontier mining town. It's purpose is industrial, but it looks very organic and lived in, very messy and chaotic. You're using some very general terms (visually busy, hazy glow) to try and unify two different aesthetics. The Kyln is angular girders and walkways, while Knowhere is messy, sprawling outlaw town with a huge spinal cord in the background. I'm desciribing a recurring aesthetic in GotG, one that's not particularly dynamic or interesting but is neverheless overused. It is highly detailed and polished, which is its real accomplishment, otherwise it doesn't convey any interesting story beyond looking pretty sometimes. Like, the prison is rectangular and has walkways? There's so much more you could do with the concept of a sci-fi prison that's the dark underbelly of the bright, 'heroic' civilization. Like you could make it unnervingly bright and clean to connect it with Xandar. Or Knowhere, which barely uses its anatomic motif - I could imagine a better sequence where the heroes travel across an entire giant corpse being picked apart by the scum of the galaxy. Dock at the fingers, wait for the meeting in the cerebral cortex by going to the crotch's entertainment district. Phylodox posted:Dude, your entire posting gimmick is "nuh-uh". People, myself included, have tried, repeatedly, and citing examples, to explain to you some of the stuff that's going on in Guardians of the Galaxy and your response is always, "No, that's not happening." You just keep falling back on your "No, it's just rote sci-fi" schtick. Well, have fun with that. I'm sure determinedly going out of your way to not enjoy or understand good films will take you far in life. You've misunderstood my posts then. I generally agree with people's readings and interpretations of these movies, and what's "going on in" them. I agree that GotG is a movie about people overcoming loss, and that GotG 2 is a movie about overcoming egotism, and so on and so on. It's just what's "going on in" them is a very lame sci-fi adventure that's adulated because it's segregated from proper critical context. Guy A. Person posted:You've also talked about MoS's influences but haven't mentioned the other super blatant Snyder reference: Doc Manhattan from Watchmen  Guy A. Person posted:The diorama thing was pretty insightful though, try talking more about stuff like that rather than rehashing GotG1 arguments. Well consider the material I have to work with. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 16:17 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:So "diffused light" is an overused aesthetic? Visually busy? They're both seedy-looking places with a lot going on, basically. One looks like, well, a prison, while the other looks kind of like the streets in Blade Runner. And you keep getting mad that the movie isn't doing things it's not trying to, but that you want it to. The Kyln is a rough place full of corruption and danger. It's the rear end-end of the Xandar empire. It's obviously somewhere neglected by the empire because that's where they shuffle off all the people they don't want to think about. The aesthetic reflects that. And, again, Knowhere is a giant head where they get knowledge. Its name is literally "know here". Why would it be a whole body? I'm suggesting more compelling alternatives. I don't need them, because there are other works which have done such things. You seem to be working backwards from these concepts and assuming these things are immutable. For example, nothing actually dictates that Knowhere must be a giant head except that it was so in the comics. Phylodox posted:Also, no grandeur here: Well, there isn't much. Those shots all emphasise detail and life. It's as busy as an anthill, emphasising the gross organity of what's going on.. Again, that's where GotG2 shines, busy but polished environments. This is more grand:  Disgusting Coward posted:Yo bro I actually agree with you on a lot of points but you keep going back to this IMAGINE IF IT WAS A WHOLE CORPSE!!! thing and I gotta tell you that's lame as gently caress. 
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Again, it's where they go to get knowledge. "Know here". It's a head, where the brains are. Where memories and ideas are stored. It's a pretty clear, effective metaphor. You seem to have misunderstood the metaphor. The point of the place is to show life teeming in midst of death, which is why it's a skull. The Collector even presides over a zoo full of exotic lifeforms to emphasise the biological aspect of it. Phylodox posted:Those shots emphasize scale and volume. The Milano is a tiny spec, all that life is just clusters of light. The spinal column in the background is titanic. If you're going to say that doesn't display grandeur, then I just don't understand you on a fundamental level. Knowhere is a vast thing, but it doesn't have splendour of appearance (it's purposefully degraded, prosaic, and anthill-like), magnificence, or loftiness, which are things that make up 'grandeur'. Those are things that are present in the other shot. There's even a David Bowie song that's existential instead of majestic. Again, the problem is that you think reactively, so when I propose some idea you end up letting it define your own arguments. I mentioned that a setting doesn't have grandeur to it, so you find it necessary to prove that it does. You need to think proactively. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:11 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Again, no literary criticism is proactive. You are just talking about someone else's work without creating anything of worth yourself. It's an entirely reactionary undertaking. You can shitpost all you want, you don't get to pretend it's original or matters. You're appealing to the old rejection of literary criticism as innately parasitical. In reality, literary criticism is simply the practice of seeking to understand texts. This is a creative and proactive effort despite always existing in relation to 'superior' texts (but really, what doesn't?). BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:20 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:How does one thing preclude the other? In any way? You think it's a coincidence that it's a head and they're in search of knowledge? You're just willfully ignoring things to prove you're right at this point. The pun that it's a place where the heroes go know things is discernible, but it's not really even a metaphor. What's more important is how it ties into the larger theme of death in the movie. Phylodox posted:It absolutely has those things. You're confusing what we know it to be (a dirty, teeming mining colony) with how it's presented in those shots It is presented to be a dirty, teeming mining colony. The giant head is visibly degraded and falling apart, and is presented as fading into the nebula. The insides are messy in a organic sense, like a human body, with buildings and industry. What you're looking at is a very down-and-dirty city, and it's clearly shown in those screenshots. When I say that you think reactively, it's because you don't invest your imagination into this and depend on received knowledge. You've read Knowhere blandly as a pun, instead of the symbol of life and death that it is.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Mulva posted:That's just accurate. Of course it's parasitical, it lives off the work of others and gives nothing back to the process that created it. By the time there is a work to critique, it's already happened. It's effectively fan fiction with a more analytical bent. An editor at least can deconstruct the work at a point where input can actually make it better. By the time the critic sees the ship it's already sailed, and the best they can do is say "Man of Steel was a better ship". You seem to be so angry about someone criticising a movie that you've determined that literary criticism and critical discussion are in themselves bad, and anything but reciting plot points is a fool's errand. That seems a bit insecure. It's okay to engage in criticism. Phylodox posted:It can work as both. That is, if anything, more interesting. Wow, a metaphor that does double duty! Guardians of the Galaxy is a great movie You're confused, because the fact that the heroes go to a place called Knowhere (that's shaped like a head) to know things isn't a metaphor. A giant skull being full of life on the other hand is perfectly in keeping with the movie's theme of life overcoming death (the same sentiment is repeated throughout the movie). The giant head is shot as not to make it very magnificent or lofty. It's even shot as to make the audience examine it an impassionate distance and melded into the sedate if colourful environment, and up close it's anything but grand. e: you need to be proactive and ask yourself why the head having grandeur is important? The reason you're trying to prove it is because you're trying to argue that the whole of the movie possesses the same grandeur as that cool and mysterious sequence of Star-Lord exploring Morag. If you'd think about this, you'd realize that the whole movie is expressly not like that Moraq scene. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:Also Bravest he wasn't saying it isn't okay to engage in criticism Mulva posted:Unless of course it's criticism *of* criticism.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:No one's angry. It's frustrating that you think you have original criticisms, when you've put no effort whatsoever towards criticism My criticisms are original, they're just concise - the movie is an inferior retelling of Man of Steel, with visuals that are uninspiring despite being technically accomplished, and writing that at worst degenerates into meta-ish mumbling about character traits. Strange Matter posted:Moonage Daydream's placement in the film is also my favorite moment in the first movie, especially how it goes from being diegetic to being part of the soundtrack right when they enter Knowhere. I think it was thematically unfitting. Maybe Money by Pink Floyd instead.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
What I find interesting is how GotG1 had this schizophrenic, schoolyard attitude to sex. Quill totally gets laid off-screen. but basically no physical intimacy is permitted onscreen, and then GotG2 ups the ante by making sex evil - the villain's plan revolves around his extreme fecundity, which threatens to turn the whole galaxy into him.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 10:09 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 09:43
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Man fingers crossed, that dancing around it poo poo ain't as cute as they think it is, especially when there's absolutely no reason for it. There is. Sex is uncomfortable and disruptive in the movie's universe, and it threatens all life in the galaxy.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Hmmm? The villain's plan is to impregnate women while metaphorically impregnating planets. Ego wanting to gently caress planets is a well-established part of his character: 
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Revenant Threshold posted:I'm not sure that works, for a couple of reasons; to start off with the other big antagonists of the film are all about not having sex. And when at the end they double-down on the whole "Kill those jerks" bit, it's through a further exultation of non-sex procreation. Back on the main plot, if sex and procreation are bad, then the revelation of Ego's killing of all his kids wouldn't be portrayed as as much of a horrifying act that it is. This is where you need to grab the subtext by the balls and notice what is the source of fear is - it's the father's promiscuity. He has other children and families. The irony is this is that despite the big statement about how it's okay to be special, the movie embraces the fear of not being special. It certainly misses out on the potential for Chronos-like horror with it's really token mountain-of-bones imagery. It makes one yearn for the more interesting Oedipal struggles of Ang Lee's Hulk. Lord Hydronium posted:In addition to that, Ego's reproduction - the bad kind - is explicitly asexual. It's just him, spreading copies of himself across the universe, in an inherently selfish form of reproduction. Sex, and sexual reproduction, by their nature involve someone else; it's that, along with love, that creates someone like Peter, who can have personal connections and a family and all those good things. Ego's method just makes gross blue blobs. Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, the MCU's relative sexlessness aside, I don't get the claim that GotG2 is anti-sex. Ego's plan is to asexually spread across the universe. In contrast, Ego's child by sexual reproduction is the hero of the movie. Well, it's really more of the movie mixing metaphors and robbing them of their power. Ego ias to be both a narcissistic father and an invasive species, which ends up neutering (har) the horror of his character. Marvel Adventures Ego is at least consistent and wants to gently caress the Earth because he's a parody of a player. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:09 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:It's hard to say the MCU is sexless when it's first hero was lecherous playbo Iron Man, who's first interest in returning to the US is getting a burger, holding a press conference and then trying to find someone to gently caress. The majority sure is, but a popular and heavily prevalent aspect to Iron Man is that he's hosed almost every girl he's met. It's basically like how an adolescent or young teen who's aware of sex might talk dirty with friends, but has no idea what actual physical love or intimacy is going to be. I think this screencap serves as a metaphor for at least GotG's stance on sex:  Franchescanado posted:Ego's fear is not his promiscuity. You've misread that - I was talking about what horror Ego represents to audiences. And he's a fairly confused character, so the fear of the father-as-philanderer has to share ground with fear of the father-as-abuser, fear of the father-as-exploiter, and fear of the father-as-Chronos-devouring-his-children. And as a narcissistic character he's an ineffective one, since there's none of that intimate intensity that would bring with it. Comic book movies have done it before, in 2003's Hulk. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:32 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Revenant Threshold posted:Nah, that doesn't work - again, note the point at which the plot turns. It's not Ego revealing his promiscuity; if it was, we wouldn't need Dead Kid Cave, or his revelation about his personal hand in Meredith's death. Dead Kid Cave prepares the immediate oncoming shock; killing Quill's mother is the hit, both to Quill and to the audience, if the various people talking about gasps from the cinema at that point are to be any judge of its effectiveness. Too, Ego's end goal is about as opposite promiscuity and sex and procreation as possible Ego killing Star-Lord's mother is really just effective as a swerve, otherwise you're just reiterating my own points - the father has a skeleton full of closets, he has other women and other children. These are all things that children fear. It's not very effective, so people focus on the gasp and shock of that swerve. And Ego's end goal is again mixed metaphors like I mentioned - he's both an evil father and an invasive species that threatens to overtake all other life. What's also being ignored that it's not very asexual at all, what with all the liquid gushing through narrow avenues. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:02 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Revenant Threshold posted:That Ego has his unknown Dead Kid Cave secret isn't your points, that's the text of the film. The point you made that I was addressing was your belief that "Sex is uncomfortable and disruptive in the movie's universe, and it threatens all life in the galaxy.", and later on, "what is the source of fear is - it's the father's promiscuity." Both ideas are actively disagreed with by both text and subtext of the film. Both two big villains have eliminated, or seek to eliminate, promiscuity and sex, and thwart procreation, either before it happens or after. Sex is a disruptive element in the movie - a huge, all-consuming and growing thing that in GotG2 threatens families and life (a tumour is what kills Meredith Quill). Victory is achieved by cleasing the infectious organism. Chaste or family-like embraces represent the height of healthy love in the movies. Revenant Threshold posted:The metaphors actually end up working pretty well together; Ego's fatherhood isn't portrayed as negative, and to the contrary, when he's "dad Ego" he gets portrayed well. It's his rejection of fatherhood for the mantle of invasive species that's the problem. His abandonment of one role for another highlights the difference between the two concepts. It's mixed metaphors, since abusive fathers and existential threats are intimidating for largely opposite reasons. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:57 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 15:29 |
|
|
Mulva posted:This look into your home life explains a lot about your posting. That their parents don't care about them is a common fear for children. it's pretty basic. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 20:11 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 20:09
|
|