Mulva posted:

Most actually don't, as healthy children tend to have a nice protective sheen of nearly sociopathic self-interest by and large. It's only later in life that they develop the scope to actually consider the self in relation to others in such a way as to go "What if everything I believe is just a lie and reality is actually far different?". Children that actually wonder if everything is secretly horrible are rare [Not massively so, but still] and often given a reason to question. Be it some tragedy or poor parenting.

Which were you?

Franchescanado posted:

Revenant Threshold posted:

Seriously, though; it's not sex that's a "huge, all-consuming and growing thing" that provides a threat. Quite the opposite; the literal, textual example is Ego self-propagating, and destroying the good that came from sex in order to do so.

Revenant Threshold posted:

the threat of the abusive father and the threat of the existential threat are the same; death, and usage to further Ego. .

Mulva posted:

No I'm pretty sure nothing you've said has ever actually been about movies.

Franchescanado posted:

Mulva posted:

Or he's comparing you to someone who died because they were too stupid to let a point go.

Lord Hydronium posted:

If a villain has a bunch of kids and murders them, and you think him having kids is supposed to be the bad part, that might say more about you than it does about the movie.

Gyges posted:

Those are quite clearly not the things that Peter gives a flying gently caress about, let alone fears.

CelticPredator posted:

Art? Making people...feel...emotions? What the hell?

Gyges posted:

Are people generally afraid their dad will abandon them after he already did so 34 years ago?

Roth posted:

One of my friend's is still dealing with losing his father almost four years afyer the fact and felt pretty strongly affected by it, so I don't blame anybody for crying. But whatever helps you guys feel like the coolest cats around I guess.

Mulva posted:

Type of thing to come out of the mouth of someone that needs their shirt pulled up over the head while people kick them in the rear end for 5 minutes?

Maxwell Lord posted:

Sure, Yondu's death is a bit heavily foreshadowed. But there was enough going on otherwise that I wasn't sure until pretty late in the climax that it was going to take place. We've spent enough time with him to grow to like him as a character and to understand how Peter would come to view him as his true father, and to lose two fathers at once is pretty brutal.

Mulva posted:

I think you'll find I've spent nearly all my time making fun of people for who they are rather than their criticisms of the movie

PostNouveau posted:

I have no idea what random screengrabs are supposed to prove.

Phylodox posted:

Oh, we're back here again? Yeah, agreed, Hitchhiker's Guide sure was more memorable than Guardians

Phylodox posted:

You said one made the other look forgettable, a supremely ironic statement.

Phylodox posted:

I mean, let's take it as a given for a moment that Hitchhiker's Guide's visuals are, just, hands down better than Guardians'. Just for the sake of argument. Do you know what you've successfully proven? That visuals don't matter in film.

sean10mm posted:

I'm starting to think he just finds the repetition soothing.

Phylodox posted:

Then, by your own argument, Guardians of the Galaxy must have better visuals.

Phylodox posted:

Fixed that up. Wasn't terribly difficult.

Is this actually the case? Because, if so, then yeah, I'll stop engaging. I don't want this to edge into bullying territory.

Unoriginal Name posted:

MCU films are made to be broadly marketed, and thus, avoid on screen sex

Gyges posted:

The continuing argument isn't that visuals don't matter. The repeated rebuttals to your MOS and Hitchhiker screen shots is varying degrees of 1)those are bad screenshots that don't display the actual appearance of the film, 2)those are bad screenshots that don't display valid comparisons, 3)a movie doing something better than another movie doesn't automatically make that other movie crap, 4)while visuals are important, they are not the be all and end all of what makes a good or enjoyable movie. Your response is to call anyone who disagrees objectively wrong on a subjective matter and then post more copies of the same screen shots.

Franchescanado posted:

the guy who spent the movie's run-time screaming "Not funny!'", "Not Snyder!", "This isn't Hitchhiker's!", "No Sex!", to the theater screen.

Groovelord Neato posted:

to be fair to bravestoflamps doesn't he have that really good the name of the wind thread in ye olde book barne?

Yakmouth posted:

That being said, I'd like to argue that Gunn doesn't rely much on symbolic visuals, not for a lack of talent, but because GotGv2 (and 1, for that matter) is first and foremost a comedy and he's pushing hard to make the visuals funny instead of meaningful.


If you'd like to criticize the film's cinematography for being insufficiently humorous go ahead -- but in my opinion claiming it to be insufficiently profound misses the point entirely.

Yakmouth posted:

But I never said GotG v2 is uncinematic. I was only trying to suggest that the overall themes of the film weren't being expressed primarily through it's cinematography.

GoldfishStew posted:

Probably the best line of the movie. So funny.

LeJackal posted:

How is that supposed to be funny?

Yakmouth posted:

Yeah, because he isn't a satire of a space adventurer. Parody and satire are not synonyms.

CelticPredator posted:

And why is he so attached to his gadget and pop culture?

CelticPredator posted:

Half right. His music is his last bit or attachment to his mother. Awesome Mix Vol 1 came from her, as did Vol 2.
So when the Walkman is crushed it's almost like his mom died again.

quote:

But here... in this movie... I fall out of love with ANDY because he hands over WOODY. Now I get it. Ultimately, that's what Woody wanted, to be with his friends with an ideal imaginative great kid with a peculiar imagination. And Andy has one of those stupid mothers that would harp about his toys. Handing him a box and a trash bag and telling him to choose. What the hell? It is bad enough that this family has never figured out the actual value of Woody in the collectibles sphere... but the idea that in the end, Andy would give up WOODY. It kinda pisses me off. Now, we've never found out why ANDY had Woody - and in all the time in that house, we've never seen Andy's father. I bring this up, because I'm writing this on FATHER'S DAY. What is Andy's father situation? The father isn't there the day the boy goes off to college? We met Andy right after the birth of Andy's sister - and there was no Father then. I like to think that Andy's father died in some manner that left Andy's mom with the money to buy the house and take care of the two kids. Whatever happened to Andy's father, he was out of the picture significantly in advance of the first film... but... I always harbored the suspicion that WOODY was Andy's father's toy. That Woody's obsessive compulsion to be there for ANDY came from that relationship he had with Andy's father. And that it was possible, that Woody never necessarily knew this. I imagine that Woody was played with by his previous owner, that he went into the attic - then perhaps when Andy's father passed away, his Grandmother went through her son's things and found Woody - remembered how much that Woody meant to Andy's father - and felt it should go to Andy. Obviously WOODY meant everything to Andy for awhile. The wallpaper, the bedsheets - all for a toy that was beyond Andy's time. But this toy meant the most. Even at the end of the movie, he finds it incredibly hard to let go of Woody, but there's something about the notion of Woody still being played with that makes him happy. The notion though of leaving childish things behind, giving your toys to the next generation... I loathe that conceit.

CelticPredator posted:

You're posting on a message board you paid money for (or someone paid money for) talking about a comic book film. You're not really a bastion of maturity.

Lt. Danger posted:

No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it.

Yakmouth posted:

This one in particular blows my mind; how on earth would speeding up the scene and dropping its soundtrack have improved it?

Yakmouth posted:

BravestOfTheLamps hasn't been making critiques at all, only assertions. According to them, the movie's visuals are undynamic, colourful, dull, unimpressive, impressive, and bland. The only actual scenes they use to support these assertions are 'Come a Little Bit Closer' with Yondu, and Ego's 'villain moment'. Although they're somewhat vague about it my take is that in both of those scenes they felt James Gunn's cinematography undercut the emotions that he was supposedly trying to convey. Which is patiently wrong. Both of those scenes have been praised extensively in this thread as being shocking and unexpected. The first was (imo) majestic and the second genuinely horrifying.

Yakmouth posted:

With Guardians of the Galaxy v2 James Gunn built a Ferrari, and BravestOfTheLamps can't get over the fact that's not a sailboat.

Yakmouth posted:

So you're upgrading your score from 'not that good' to 'passable'. Okay, are you willing to explain how you think cutting its soundtrack would have improved the comedy of the scene?


My proof is empirical, here's a partial selection of quotes:


Those are genuine emotional responses. The scenes worked because they did what they set out to do: make people gasp, tear-up, etc.
What made them mediocre?

Only if you imagine that sailboats are cheap and cross-country road trips unromantic. Otherwise, no.

Yakmouth posted:

You brought emotion into the conversation, not me.

You say the emotion was undercut. This is explicitly refuted by the testimony of people reacting to the scene. It was direction, cinematography composition, etc, that caused their reaction. And honestly, emotional reactions are all you ever have. You were 'uninspired' and 'wearied' by the movie. By all means stop using vague weasel-words and start thinking critically. You are the lamp calling the kettle black.

It was a very striking scene. I'm glad you've come around to agreeing.

poisonpill posted:

hahahahahaha HaahahhahaHahaha hahahaha hahahahaha haa ok

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Doesn't Lamps have like actual not joke, not internet autism? He's kinda gonna have nonstandard emotional responses to things.

CelticPredator posted:

Maybe it's because I look at films through a more filmmakery lens, but to me, getting someone to feel something from the piece of art you created is extremely great and super hard to achieve. You can want people to be critical of films and poo poo and that's fine I guess. But I just don't see any real application for it outside of a classroom. Human beings are emotional creatures. We use emotions to communicate, and to articulate ideas and opinions. To remove that element from art, and especially this artform, is pretty disingenuous.

I don't give a poo poo about looking critically and objectively at films because I really really don't have too. I'm not being graded on it, I'm not being probated for not doing it. If that is how you personally view art, more power to you. You do you. But don't expect everyone to understand your very off putting and alienating view point, you know? We get it, ya don't dig the film because it's not as visually great as other films, and you don't like the concept of immaturity. Fair enough. But as you can see, it's not an issue for everyone else.

So uh, maybe try watching films to feel something...and feel those things, and feel emotions and your life would be better over all instead of trying to critically analyze films all the time.

GoldfishStew posted:

See, you're a loving dipshit because you think you can "debunk" people's actual complaints about the movie. The movie had some lazy writing.

Brother Entropy posted:

if i had a major criticism of gotg2 (which i enjoyed more than the first overall) it's that it really tries to push the yondo as peter's dad thing hard in a movie where they only really meet up at the end(and the previous film didn't really give off that vibe between those two at all, so all you've got is what happens in this one)

Yaws posted:

Who would you have direct it? Or write the screenplay?

BrianWilly posted:

They definitely did in the first one.

"You are the light of my life. My precious son. My little Star-Lord."

THE BAR posted:

Did you miss the cavern of corpses, planet blobs killing people and every protagonist, save one, almost dying?

Lurdiak posted:

There's definitely a petulant child aspect to Ronan, but I thought they managed to give him some depth by conveying his sense of loss and betrayal from his own people turning their backs on him. He's angry and crazy but he has a reason to be, he's not just having a tantrum like Loki or your generic power-tripping boy-king archetype. And his loss ties into Drax's and Peter's too, which helps make the whole movie feel like it's about something.