|
Sir Kodiak posted:An alcoholic billionaire in a flying suit of power armor? No, I hardly remember anyone saying that would be boring. Then you must have lost internet connection that year, general consensus all over was that it would be poo poo, and who the gently caress is Jon Favereau, and what has RDJ even done lately. Then it came out, and neckbeards everywhere suddenly always loved it.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Error 404 posted:Then you must have lost internet connection that year, general consensus all over was that it would be poo poo, and who the gently caress is Jon Favereau, and what has RDJ even done lately. Then it came out, and neckbeards everywhere suddenly always loved it. Yeah this is not how I recall things going at all. Comic book nerds were stoked by the time the first teaser pictures leaked and pretty much everyone else was stoked by the first trailer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Then you must have lost internet connection that year, general consensus all over was that it would be poo poo, and who the gently caress is Jon Favereau, and what has RDJ even done lately. Then it came out, and neckbeards everywhere suddenly always loved it. Jon Favreau was seen as an odd choice, but other than that, at least where I was (this forum and a few other sites), the response to Iron Man was that he was obviously the easiest Avenger to make a film out of and RDJ was a slam dunk. You may have seen other reactions elsewhere, but I'm not the one claiming a singular universal response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
The first Iron Man movie got decent attention when it was announced but it was lost a bit since 2008 was also giving nerds Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, Wall-E, and The Dark loving Knight. People were excited to see what Downey Jr. was going to bring to it but that was it. However, it wasn't completely lost. LtKenFrankenstein is right, the first trailer did suddenly spike interest for the film and then the leak of a post-credits scene was a final attention getter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:The first Iron Man movie got decent attention when it was announced but it was lost a bit since 2008 was also giving nerds Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, Wall-E, and The Dark loving Knight. People were excited to see what Downey Jr. was going to bring to it but that was it. It definitely took a while to build up a head of steam given what it was going against, but that's a very different statement than "general consensus all over was that it would be poo poo." Particularly if you're saying that attitudes change when it was actually released, as compared to the fantastic trailer it had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Ant-Man is a horrible hero (and I mean as an actual hero or doing interesting things, not the whole hitting Janet) so it's actually pretty easy to not be excited at all! He's the character I'd dump on the SHIELD show and give someone like Iron Fist a movie instead. I personally always considered Thor and Captain America to be two of my least favorite comic book characters, but both of their movies made them into likeable interesting characters. I wouldn't worry about Ant-man, especially if he's played by Paul Rudd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Then you must have lost internet connection that year, general consensus all over was that it would be poo poo, and who the gently caress is Jon Favereau, and what has RDJ even done lately. Then it came out, and neckbeards everywhere suddenly always loved it. The vast majority of responses you'll see if you look up comments on RDJ being cast as Stark are positive. I also don't remember anyone having much of an idea as to how the movie would turn out prior to the trailer, which most thought was pretty awesome. Iron Man was venturing into uncharted territory from a movie standpoint, so I doubt the cynical "movie will be poo poo" contingent was any larger of a worthless minority than it typically is with big name movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
It wasn't really "this movie will be poo poo," it was more "why Iron Man? Who cares about Iron Man?" Which is what people would be saying about Ant-Man if Marvel hadn't established a good track record and gotten Wright on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Do we get an Amazing Spiderman 2 trailer yet? I thought that was supposed to premier with Thor The Dark World?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
lomzus posted:James Mangold and Hugh Jackman are returning for a Wolverine sequel. Hells yes, I loved the Wolverine so I'm down for more!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
Oh man, that footage of The Collector is amazing. I didn't think I needed another reason to be pumped for Guardians of the Galaxy, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
The entire super vegan sequence of Scott Pilgrim was the best part of the movie hands down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Democratic Pirate posted:The entire super vegan sequence of Scott Pilgrim was the best part of the movie hands down. The Lucas Lee fight would beg to differ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:The Lucas Lee fight would beg to differ. Nope, he's right. The high five in the background is the only part of the film I remember fondly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Both scenes are great, I can't actually decide which I like better. The vegan fight has the Vegan Police, but the Lucas Lee fight has that amazing use of the Universal music cue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
My favorite part of Scott Pilgrim might actually be the fake Lucas Lee movie posters released in advance of the film.  
Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Both scenes are great, I can't actually decide which I like better. The vegan fight has the Vegan Police, but the Lucas Lee fight has that amazing use of the Universal music cue. Also the lead-up with his stunt doubles ganging up on Scott was an awesome homage to The Warriors, right down to the synthy musical cue they used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj_0N0XxiAw
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:My favorite part of Scott Pilgrim might actually be the fake Lucas Lee movie posters released in advance of the film. Chris Evans makes everything better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:My favorite part of Scott Pilgrim might actually be the fake Lucas Lee movie posters released in advance of the film. I really dislike Scott Pilgrim, but I LOVE these posters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:
I'm curious why you think it defines a generation. I don't like this film because I felt it was more an attempt to monetize gamer culture using retro game references and anime-inspired effects. If you take that all away, you don't have much of a film to work with besides an autistic nerd romance/revenge fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'm curious why you think it defines a generation. I don't like this film because I felt it was more an attempt to monetize gamer culture using retro game references and anime-inspired effects. If you take that all away, you don't have much of a film to work with besides an autistic nerd romance/revenge fantasy. I'm curious what you think defining a generation entails and specific examples of films that have done so for previous generations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 02:02
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I don't like this film because I felt it was more an attempt to monetize gamer culture using retro game references and anime-inspired effects. I don't know that you can accuse such an obviously niche, labor-of-love project of just being a cynical cash-in. Like, Edgar Wright clearly very little get in the way of telling the highly specific story he wanted to tell, which is reflected by the film's nu-cult status and failure at the box-office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
That's gotta be a joke? Monetize gamer culture? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
No, he's right. Scott Pilgrim is the Big Bang Theory of movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I don't know that you can accuse such an obviously niche, labor-of-love project of just being a cynical cash-in. Like, Edgar Wright clearly very little get in the way of telling the highly specific story he wanted to tell, which is reflected by the film's nu-cult status and failure at the box-office. It was not obvious to me that it was meant to be niche, nor was it obvious that it was a "labor of love" as you put it. Did Edgar Wright tell Universal beforehand that this film was not going to make its money back or something? There had to be a good reason Universal spent 90 million, and it was either because of Edgar's skill as a director or because someone thought all those video game references would resonate with a big enough audience to at least break even, probably both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Whizbang posted:No, he's right. Scott Pilgrim is the Big Bang Theory of movies. Yeah this sounds about right. The best thing about Scott Pilgrim is that they managed to get it made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:It was not obvious to me that it was meant to be niche, nor was it obvious that it was a "labor of love" as you put it. Did Edgar Wright tell Universal beforehand that this film was not going to make its money back or something? There had to be a good reason Universal spent 90 million, and it was either because of Edgar's skill as a director or because someone thought all those video game references would resonate with a big enough audience to at least break even, probably both. If Edgar Wright was in this project to make a bunch of cash, there's a list about a mile long of things he could've compromised on and didn't, things such as "Make something other than a two-hour long musical adaptation of a 6 volume cult independent comic book series targeted towards videogame nerds."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:If Edgar Wright was in this project to make a bunch of cash, there's a list about a mile long of things he could've compromised on and didn't, things such as "Make something other than a two-hour long musical adaptation of a 6 volume cult independent comic book series targeted towards videogame nerds." It was a studio film. The only reason it exists is because someone, be it Wright or an executive, thought it would make money. This is simply the truth. This is why most movies in general exist, and why any movie made by a major studio exists. There is nothing wrong with this as it's just how things work, but Scott Pilgrim is not some special snowflake that was made with nothing but the highest of artistic intentions going into it. Whether or not whoever greenlit the movie was crazy or an idiot for thinking something like this would make money is up for debate, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:It was a studio film. The only reason it exists is because someone, be it Wright or an executive, thought it would make money. This is simply the truth. This is why most movies in general exist, and why any movie made by a major studio exists. There is nothing wrong with this as it's just how things work, but Scott Pilgrim is not some special snowflake that was made with nothing but the highest of artistic intentions going into it. Whether or not whoever greenlit the movie was crazy or an idiot for thinking something like this would make money is up for debate, though. Yo, I'm aware of the idea that movies are a business, but do you not understand the idea that not all major studio films are designed solely to make money? And that a movie that takes as many risky chances as Scott Pilgrim probably has more than money on its mind? Raging Bull was a major studio movie - hell, a successful one too. But you don't look at that and go "Well, clearly it was just an attempt to monetize boxing culture."* *No, before you ask, I am not saying Scott Pilgrim is on Raging Bull's level. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Cyra posted:Do we get an Amazing Spiderman 2 trailer yet? I thought that was supposed to premier with Thor The Dark World? It's not premiering until the Hobbit 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
That said for as indifferent to it as I am, there is a ridiculous amount of detail Wright out into the most pointless of things like the faded lights in the background of a scene changing from x's to hearts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
I don't think he's saying that Scott Pilgrim was made without capitalistic intent, just that if it was really trying to "monetize gamer culture" Wright could have afforded to be a lot lazier with the project.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Dacap posted:It's not premiering until the Hobbit 2. drat it. That's so far away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
I just love the phrase "monetize gamer culture", it's just so ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
JT Smiley posted:I just love the phrase "monetize gamer culture", it's just so ridiculous. Monetizing a subculture based entirely around conspicuously consuming media.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
I don't know about you losers but I grew up on a commune where we raised our gamer culture from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:If you take that all away, you don't have much of a film to work with besides an autistic nerd romance/revenge fantasy. Not that I agree with your other point, and others have made better arguments above me, but what makes you think this kind of plot isn't exactly what SHOULD define that generation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:Yo, I'm aware of the idea that movies are a business, but do you not understand the idea that not all major studio films are designed solely to make money? Solely to make money? Of course not. Somewhere down the line in most films cares about the artistic merit of it. In this case that person was probably Wright. But at the end of the day it's MAIN purpose, if not it's sole purpose, is profit. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. Even Raging Bull exists because someone thought it would turn a profit. If the people in charge didn't think it would turn a profit, it would have been a much cheaper, much smaller indie film. Or more likely in the era it was produced it would just not exist. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with this (well, I guess that depends on your stance on the monetization of art but that's a whole other debate, and I don't really agree with the guy who says it was "monetizing gamer culture." Mainly because loving lol at that statement. Gamer culture, a culture founded on selling you things, being monetized? Oh no!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Solely to make money? Of course not. Somewhere down the line in most films cares about the artistic merit of it. In this case that person was probably Wright. But at the end of the day it's MAIN purpose, if not it's sole purpose, is profit. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. Even Raging Bull exists because someone thought it would turn a profit. If the people in charge didn't think it would turn a profit, it would have been a much cheaper, much smaller indie film. Or more likely in the era it was produced it would just not exist. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make then. That movies cost/make money? We all know that. Nothing you have said has refuted anything I've said, and it seems like you disagree with me on something, but I have no idea what. Uncle Boogeyman fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I don't really understand the point you're trying to make then. That movies cost/make money? We all know that. It's mainly that he's crazy for thinking monetizing a culture that is about nothing but monetization is dumb, but also you thinking it wasn't intended to make money because it's such a zany idea is also kind of dumb. No matter how insane the idea might sound on paper it's still a movie with a built in fan base that had a lead who was considered a box office draw at the time and a director who has a built in following. Of course they thought they were going to make money off of it. You were making it sound like it was something everyone down the line knew was going to be fail but they made it anyway because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 05:01
|
|