|
Charlize Theron is smolderingly hot in it so it has that going for it.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 05:45 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
Was this linked already? http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/08/0...-of-future-past Interview with Singer. X-Men: Days of Future Past Oh man this has potential both ways.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 17:14 |
|
|
Can the title of a film really be a spoiler? I think people are gonna have a hard time hiding from that one.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 17:54 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:Charlize Theron is smolderingly hot in it so it has that going for it. Besides Monster, is this ever not true?
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 18:08 |
|
|
Hancock, a superhero film that actually explores heroism. How novel. Although in threads past some presented some interesting takes on the subtexts, I loved the movie. It's one of the best superhero movies.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 18:17 |
|
|
Hancock is great up to the point they explain who they really are. Other than that it's a pretty good flick. Also Charlize Theron.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 19:17 |
|
|
My favorite part of Hancock is where a girl sexes up Hancock for saving her sister, and he premature ejaculates and almost kills her with his sperm.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 19:38 |
|
|
Jamesman posted:My favorite part of Hancock is where a girl sexes up Hancock for saving her sister, and he premature ejaculates and almost kills her with his sperm. I don't recall ever seeing that -- was it in the special features or something?
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 20:41 |
|
|
Jamesman posted:My favorite part of Hancock is where a girl sexes up Hancock for saving her sister, and he premature ejaculates and almost kills her with his sperm. 
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 21:04 |
|
|
What I dislike about the Spider-Man and Batman movies is that not of the villains have rational, sensible motives. They're just nutcases who want to see the world burn, or at best they express vague plans for improving the world. Loki in Thor was perhaps the best supervillain since Magneto. They are both motivated by legitimate grievances and have rational goals with they pursue with great cunning.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 21:27 |
|
|
Gatts posted:Hancock, a superhero film that actually explores heroism. How novel. Although in threads past some presented some interesting takes on the subtexts, I loved the movie. It's one of the best superhero movies.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 22:00 |
|
|
What are the chances the Fantastic Four reboot will not be an abomination?
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 22:38 |
|
|
Less than zero.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 22:53 |
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I don't recall ever seeing that -- was it in the special features or something? It's a deleted scene. I expect Days of Future Past to not actually be a direct adaptation of the comic storyline, just like First Class did not exactly adapt its comic book namesake.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 22:58 |
|
|
Just a guess, it's going to be set 2-3 years or so after First Class and the horrible distopic future that they learn about is going to normal 2013.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 23:02 |
|
|
The MSJ posted:It's a deleted scene.
|
| # ? Aug 5, 2012 23:53 |
|
|
Barrabas the Gray posted:What are the chances the Fantastic Four reboot will not be an abomination? I can't really see the Fantastic Four EVER being successful on film since they aren't crime fighters or anything like that, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 00:04 |
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I can't really see the Fantastic Four EVER being successful on film since they aren't crime fighters or anything like that, but I'd love to be proven wrong. Incredibles worked and is well loved, there's no reason real Fantastic Four couldn't work if off brand Fantastic Four does.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 01:38 |
|
|
Isn't Josh Trank slated to direct the new Fantastic Four? If that ends up actually happening, then okay, that's enough to be cautiously optimistic, at least.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 02:36 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Incredibles worked and is well loved, there's no reason real Fantastic Four couldn't work if off brand Fantastic Four does. Yeah, but the family dynamic in The Incredibles is completely different from the Fantastic Four, even if 3 of the characters have identical super-powers and the plot isn't even close to the same. The Parr family are super-heroes, they fight crime and help people out in natural disasters and such. The Fantastic Four are scientists who have bizarre adventures involving mole people, atlantean philanderers, insane eastern european science-wizards and world eating gods older than the universe.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 03:51 |
|
|
The FF are the most well-known superhero family ever. If you get their family bonds right, the plot itself can be as out there as possible and it won't matter.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 03:59 |
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:The FF are the most well-known superhero family ever. If you get their family bonds right, the plot itself can be as out there as possible and it won't matter. I meant that they have a different kind of family feel than The Incredibles. Mother, Father & 2 kids is pretty simple, but Husband, Wife, Brother/in-Law & horrifically mutated and somewhat depressive Best Friend is a bit stranger. I do agree though that if they get someone who can bring it together that the plot could be as wacky as they wanted, but I'm not sure how well it would be received if you pitched a super-powered script where criminals weren't being foiled and the world wasn't necessarily in danger.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 04:26 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Considering where the first First Class left us, it wouldn't surprise me if there is a major backlash now that mutants are 'out in the open' that leads to something involving Sentinels/Days of Future Past.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 04:28 |
|
|
Why do people like the part of Hancock when the black superhero is playing "the wacky spoiled black athlete that keeps screwing up in front of the media" role, but not the part that explores the social conditions that made him that way? I mean, it's the second half that makes the first half "good" - without it, it would actually be a pretty horrifying film in message.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 05:01 |
|
|
Darko posted:Why do people like the part of Hancock when the black superhero is playing "the wacky spoiled black athlete that keeps screwing up in front of the media" role, but not the part that explores the social conditions that made him that way? I mean, it's the second half that makes the first half "good" - without it, it would actually be a pretty horrifying film in message. Thank you, this is exactly the 'polite' way of phrasing this question that I didn't want to post because I knew I'd phrase it in a way that would cause people to get defensive. For what it's worth, I doubt it's anything sinister, I think it's a combination of the marketing and people just preferring the 'easier' comedic turn than the serious implications underneath it, because they weren't expecting it, I should clarify.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 05:43 |
|
|
By the same note a movie can tackle serious and worthy issues and still end up a turd of a movie. To say it was the people who were wrong because they weren't "ready" for it speaks to a failing on the movie's part too.
Nilbop fucked around with this message at Aug 6, 2012 around 05:58 |
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 05:56 |
|
|
Nilbop posted:By the same note a movie can tackle serious and worthy issues and still end up a turd of a movie. That doesn't answer the question though, if you have a legitimate gripe with the second half of the movie yet find the first half of the movie to be 'good', there should be a better argument to be put forward than a vague notion and constantly changing list of at which point the film gets 'bad'. The only consistent trend I've seen in it's detractors is that they all seem to start to dislike it once Hancock starts to actually become a superhero and that they would have preferred it, well, TJO posted:The first, hobo-superhero based half of Hancock was amazing and I'll defend it to the death. stay the 'wacky homeless, alcoholic black dude' movie.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 06:04 |
|
|
I just had a problem with how dumb the actual origin of him was. If they had done almost anything but what they did with the origin, I'd be fine with it. It's not him acting like a real hero I take issue with, it's the lovely writing surrounding that.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 06:18 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:I just had a problem with how dumb the actual origin of him was. If they had done almost anything but what they did with the origin, I'd be fine with it. It's not him acting like a real hero I take issue with, it's the lovely writing surrounding that. Why was it dumb? Like, what part? I thought the whole "doomed gods" was fine as far as flat superhero origins go, but the secondary issue of the interracial relationship not being allowed by society and how that tied into everything else was pretty inspired, I thought.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 06:24 |
|
|
Darko posted:Why was it dumb? Like, what part? I thought the whole "doomed gods" was fine as far as flat superhero origins go, but the secondary issue of the interracial relationship not being allowed by society and how that tied into everything else was pretty inspired, I thought. The doomed gods things just seemed completely at odds with everything that had come before it. It was a fairly grounded movie (with a superman-ish guy, but whatever) up until then, then all this crazy supernatural poo poo came in. It just didn't feel right to me. I'd still see Hancock 2.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 06:34 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:It was a fairly grounded movie (with a superman-ish guy, but whatever) I don't think you can do this. Like, really, I don't think 'it was a fairly grounded movie aside from all the insane fantastical poo poo' works. I understand where you're coming from, I think, by clarifying it as a matter of context but I think if you have to ignore all the stuff that's not grounded in order to define it as a grounded movie then it is, by definition, not a grounded film.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 06:55 |
|
|
Personally I felt like there was too much of a tonal clash between the first and second halves of the film. It's a big change and as mentioned the 'twist' or whatever comes out of left field and it clashes with the earlier part of the movie. One reason people probably like the beginning is because there's a lot of material that can come from having someone with superpowers just screwing around because they don't give a crap.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 06:59 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:One reason people probably like the beginning is because there's a lot of material that can come from having someone with superpowers just screwing around because they don't give a crap. Also this. I like the idea of a guy with all these super human powers who's just not very good at actually using them. He tries, but he's kind of a gently caress up. That's interesting and fresh. Guy who isn't very good with his powers but then learns a valuable lesson and becomes a real hero is kind of old hat, and I don't think Hancock did it particularly well.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 07:02 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Also this. I like the idea of a guy with all these super human powers who's just not very good at actually using them. He tries, but he's kind of a gently caress up. That's interesting and fresh.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 07:06 |
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I'd argue it was fresh like 30 years ago. Someone should greenlight a remake/movie version of that though, I'd totally be down. I never watched this because the covers to the DVD sets made it look like one of the worst things ever made.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 07:09 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:I never watched this because the covers to the DVD sets made it look like one of the worst things ever made. Believe it or not, I'm walking on aiiii-rr!
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 07:14 |
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I meant that they have a different kind of family feel than The Incredibles. Mother, Father & 2 kids is pretty simple, but Husband, Wife, Brother/in-Law & horrifically mutated and somewhat depressive Best Friend is a bit stranger. Honestly, "science family cray adventure" is probably the best way o go abut it. And I'll be the first to say (doubt I'm actually the first) that they should skip the Orion entirely. Or make that the intro sequence. Have the F4 already be established as the awesome family it is. Hell, I would love to see Valeria and Franklin in a movie, show the entire family dynamic. Play the first movie as an adventure sic-fi to give the characters time to show off what they can do / how they interact with the world and each other then save Doom or whatever villain for a sequel.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 12:48 |
|
|
Dan Didio posted:Believe it or not, I'm walking on aiiii-rr! George isn't hoooommmeee.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 16:13 |
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Honestly, "science family cray adventure" is probably the best way o go abut it. And I'll be the first to say (doubt I'm actually the first) that they should skip the Orion entirely. Or make that the intro sequence. Have the F4 already be established as the awesome family it is. Hell, I would love to see Valeria and Franklin in a movie, show the entire family dynamic. Has there actually been a comic book film that's successfuly done this? I mean, there was the latest Hulk movie but really aside from Spiderman/Batman/Superman the general public does not know how these heroes came to be and would be kind of confused if you just mashed it into an intro sequence.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 16:40 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Has there actually been a comic book film that's successfuly done this? Blade.
|
| # ? Aug 6, 2012 16:45 |
|
