|
picosecond posted:A friend who works for a company that does some work with Marvel Studios heard this: They want to tap the vampire market (ha ha) so they're going the occult route for the next round of movies. The vampire clans introduced in Blade become the main villains in either Dr. Strange or Iron Fist. They want to do Runaways for the high school market, but they're also considering a teenage version of Luke Cage. Make of this what you will. Morbius confirmed for new Spider-Man movie.
|
| # ¿ Dec 23, 2011 12:11 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 25, 2013 21:25 |
|
|
massive spider posted:I read through all the filmcrithulk blogs recently and his most recent one is reviewing, appropriately hulk, http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/ I'll convert case his main argument for the sake of your eyes I love film crit Hulk's all caps I'M SO GODDAMN SINCERE ABOUT THIS poo poo gimmick. I can't help but picture this lowercased version being read out by a tired Bruce Banner in a recently ripped shirt.
|
| # ¿ Jan 2, 2012 15:09 |
|
|
commy gun posted:This may have been covered already but what did Tom Hardy weigh in at for the Dark Knight Rises? Oh good, Batman chat's back. Mods please move this thread to W&W.
|
| # ¿ Jan 2, 2012 20:23 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:Should we talk about the Chronicle here? It looks vaguely comic booky. And with teens getting powers it's a given they will discuss comics in the film at some point. It could probably sustain its own thread after release, but if you've got something to get off your chest before then I'm sure this is the venue for it. I'm pretty stoked about it, from the trailer it looks like they're really taking the found-footage medium seriously. There are a few shots in the trailer that are framed excellently without straining belief. I particularly like the shot from the front of the car where the truck is pushed off the road. "Andrew" is brilliantly understating the swipe, I love that he's not mugging at the camera here or visibly wigging out in any way. I'm also excited that the camera point of view seems to follow Andrew, the guy who goes off the rails. That seems like an great way of avoiding the obvious pitfall of having him simply be the "bad guy" in a generic teen action movie kind of way. Oh, and the fact that we're pretty much given the time span up front is interesting. Since the trailer has that rewind at the end, I wonder if the film itself will do any kind of jumping around in time, sort of like Cloverfield did with the pre-disaster personal moments. e: I thought surprise sex-chat was pretty valuable to be honest! At least it treated its subject matter as a film, rather than some alternate universe. Shanty fucked around with this message at Jan 17, 2012 around 15:38 |
| # ¿ Jan 17, 2012 15:34 |
|
|
Robot_Rumpus posted:The problem with those movies is that at some point it just simply does not make sense to hold that camera. It happened in Cloverfield too. Unfortunately, the times when it makes the most sense to not be using the camera are the times that the movie will be the most interesting to the audience. Yeah I agree completely, but what I'm saying is that (from the trailer) it looks like they're doing that pretty well. It's at least pretty interesting that for at of the shots, it looks like it's the instigator of the action who's holding the camera. And "why is he filming this?" is an interesting question, as opposed to "why is he still filming?!". I mean it's clear that he's not going to be uploading his standoff against forty squad cars to youtube with a "lol check dis" comment, so they're at the very least going to be attempting a more interesting portrayal than "power corrupts". It doesn't look like anyone can stop him, the trailer doesn't seem to emphasize the other two dudes really, so maybe it'll eventually spin off into some insane Funny Games scenario!
|
| # ¿ Jan 17, 2012 15:46 |
|
|
SpaceMost posted:The only things I remember about Superman Returns are Spacey camping it up to the extreme, Superman being shot in the eye in kickin' rad Matrix bullet time, and a (seemingly) twenty minute action sequence involving an airplane and Superman escaping with Lois that concludes with Superman deciding to return to wherever it was he was escaping from, thereby making the preceding 20 minutes unnecessary filler -- "Sorry Lois, I changed my mind and I'm going back." "I don't remember what happened in this film" is a pretty bad basis for film discussion, man. Did you consider that the scene they wasted all that time and money on was meant to convey something about the characters? Specifically, wasn't it more or less New Dad who rescued them in the end? e: on Lois' insistance, no less! Having her plead with the New Guy to rescue supes says a lot about his sudden obsolescence Shanty fucked around with this message at Jan 18, 2012 around 14:31 |
| # ¿ Jan 18, 2012 14:28 |
|
|
Darko posted:Why? I'm just using examples that everyone can picture that draw a direct parallel to how Superman acts in the film. His actions in that film were as "goony" as you can imagine, and instead of making him "flawed," they made him come off less mature than most of the people that watched the film. And it's kind of funny framing him in those terms, too. A father watching his son, prevented from directly interacting with him: kind of creepy, goony, immature. I... disagree? The film doesn't frame it like this at all, there's no element of "creepy stalker". And I don't think I know what you mean by "goony", I usually associate that with, I don't know, self-entitled online rants, a sedentary lifestyle. Plus Superman's problems in this film are entirely a product of his being a little too smooth with a particular lady, and I always though that was sort of the goon antithesis?
|
| # ¿ Jan 18, 2012 15:01 |
|
|
^^^well uh three of those movies were pretty good soooo^^^Darko posted:Superman having "two fathers" is just a direct point of him being pulled between two worlds, and his father issues (as a default) only extend to that. I agree that exploration of more father issues with him as a character isn't a given, and is rather pointless. Again, I can't agree that the movie presents superman as a teenager. If anything he's presented as being the same age as his myth, old and on the verge of obsolescence. He comes back to earth only to find that he's been replaced in more ways than one. Tying it into the Donner version lets us remember the long history of the character, which, again, speaks against the "teen" interpretation. I still don't see where you're getting it. A teenager (or a "goony") portrayal would have him stepping on his own toes in every encounter he has with Lois, but all of their conversations are very adult, restrained even, some of them loaded with resignation and regret - hardly TEEN MATTERS. He's never pissed off at New Dad. As far as the "creepy stalker" sequence goes, I can see what you're saying about the whole "lurking in the bushes" thing, the scene does give off those vibes to begin with. The conversation being about him specifically does paint him as something of an eavesdropper. He doesn't "create windows" to peep through, though, so that imagery isn't there, the entire wall just fades away while supes never ever has to crane his neck. But the way he just hovers there, bold as brass in mid air, observing the scene using his OMNISCIENT POWERS paints him more as the superhuman observer, but with shades of regret for exactly that fact. It's not so much that he's not wanted, more that he's unable to fit in. That's what I'm getting from the scene, that he can only be a passive observer, with no place in the "story" he witnesses (Lois says as much herself during the sequence). Being "creepy" means he at least fits into the picture somehow. Then it would be a sort of love triangle, a decidedly human relationship and I'm not getting that at all.
|
| # ¿ Jan 18, 2012 19:26 |
|
|
Tilda Swinton is just genius casting for an androgynous angel. Assuming you can't get David Bowie circa 1972, I mean.
|
| # ¿ Feb 1, 2012 11:14 |
|
|
Mr. Misrule posted:Oh, hey, a bunch of new posts in the comic book movie thread! Maybe there's a new trailer for someth-- Wolfsheim posted:I'm not obliged to dig it up and it never seems to matter to you when a filmmaker outright contradicts whatever you've interpreted, but I could've sworn I remember some soundbite from one of the interchangeable N + T that basically boiled down to "lol and once she ad-libbed some random poo poo about diapers I knew we'd found the perfect actress!!" And in that sense, the strongest readings have nothing to do with authorial intent. Think of films analysed decade after release revealing something interesting about the Zeitgeist in which they were released which would have been invisible to the director.
|
| # ¿ Feb 20, 2012 10:15 |
|
|
Klaxon posted:I fundamentally disagree with this. The director's intent should be what matters. It is the audience's role to recognize a work for what it is and not what their interpretation is (or marketing's, for that matter.) A movie can affect viewers in different ways but first and foremost recognize the story the director is trying to tell, not just the parts that worked for you. To what end? What do I care what the director, the editor, the actors or whoever says? They can be wrong about things. What you're advocating is the death of discussion and analysis. "Well this film is a heavy endorsement of minority discrimination and a ham-fisted attempt to legitimize the methods of the military-industrial complex. Wait, what's this from an interview with the director? It's just about aliens? WELP." Directors can be idiots with Bad Opinions, which can come through in their films. Blindly accepting anything they say is baffling to me. At the same time, though, I'm not saying they should be ignored. I'll take any director's reading very seriously, since they HAVE made it their business to Know Movies, and have likely spent some time developing a reading of the film at every level from script to final product. But at the same time, it's JUST a READING, to be evaluated on even terms with any other reading. When you develop a reading, you're going "this element means this, this shot conveys that". That's exactly what the director of a movie does. He doesn't chose this poo poo randomly, he has an idea of how to read a film, and tries to construct a film that, when read in this way, conveys the reading he has in mind. So for authorial intent to be paramount, you have to assume that the author is the Best in the World at film analysis. This is assuming the process is even reversible! I don't GET how you can take issue with reading the text without regard for intent!
|
| # ¿ Feb 21, 2012 14:49 |
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Why not? Most of that is barely surface reading (and is essentially the plot of Iron Man 2, interestingly), but there's definitely some significance to be found in the fact that Bane's mask has been changed from a luchador mask to what is essentially a muzzle. Both would restrict speech, so it's probably all the same to the tactical realism crowd, but look at that thing and tell me Bane isn't an expression of some form of repression, particularly of the voice/mouth. poo poo, the opening scenes has him tied up by the CIA with a bag over his head, this poo poo is brick-level subtlety. If that's something Nolan wants to make a Thing out of, I can understand that he'd want it to be reflected in the audio as well.
|
| # ¿ Feb 22, 2012 13:25 |
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:Michael Bay to produce new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie(s). And he's making them... ALIENS. Sounds like a fresh take on the franchise. That's all I got.
|
| # ¿ Mar 19, 2012 18:30 |
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:That (good) song and an assload of awful generic wailing guitar riffs and power chords were all I remember as far as music from that movie goes. Wait, no, there was also that one song about the kid wanting a Coke and his mom wouldn't give him one, I think. It was around the time Pepper walks in on Tony in his workshop. All he wanted was a Pepsi!
|
| # ¿ Mar 30, 2012 07:24 |
|
|
LtKenFrankenstein posted:I can't wait to see how batshit this thread gets once the movie actually comes out. Maybe someone will post a substantiated opinion.
|
| # ¿ Apr 14, 2012 22:20 |
|
|
DFu4ever posted:After watching Paul Allen get loving torn apart because he didn't meet the "Comic Book Movie Thread's Standards of Film Discussion" in his quick little review, I'd have to disagree with you. There is room for both types of discussion, regardless of how either side feels about it. For some reason, the SMG crowd seems determined to poo poo all over anyone who just describes the reasons they enjoy it without getting into philosophical/political/occasionally completely made up reasons. People aren't tearing Paul Allen apart because he came in and posted an unsubstantiated opinion in the comic book movie megathread. There's plenty of room for that. People are laying into him because what he posted was Paul Allen posted:Just out of the NYC fan screening. So that's three gently caress yous to the people who have done nothing but post interesting and substantiated analysis of a clip from a comic book movie in the comic book movie thread in the movie discussion forum. And he's the good guy here. This is the type of poster you want to see more of in cinema discusso. This is what you're defending.
|
| # ¿ Apr 15, 2012 13:49 |
|
|
Hollis posted:Grim and Dark work for Batman as it's a part of the character, just how racism is a undercurrent to X men, Superman does not work at all Grim and Dark. It's just depressing. He's not only someone who has Super Powers but is also Super Moral. I will be upset if someone dies in this film at Superman's hands, that would be terrible. I didn't even like the movies where he basically killed the that guy in the films. That was awful. Superman doesn't kill Well no one said it was going grim and dark as in grimdark. Snyder wants to load on the emotion a bit more, and while that is about as vague as you can get, it sounds pretty positive.
|
| # ¿ Apr 15, 2012 18:36 |
|
|
Soonmot posted:I think we all know the one time Superman will kill. Pay attention Snyder. If it's emotion you're after, boy have we got a screenplay for you.
|
| # ¿ Apr 15, 2012 19:06 |
|
|
massive spider posted:Thats kind of silly, its like saying "you can't adequately convey an idea or emotion in film (like you can a comic book) so its best not to bother" No don't you get it, a film could never approach a comic book when it comes to representing an unstoppable force of terror  in knee-high boots, nope this is the worst argument.
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2012 12:57 |
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:The CGI looks a little ropey in places, but that's easily one of the best action sequences they've shown so far. Yeah, this scene is a lot better at following through on the action. There are some nice back and forth shots and the narrative of the action is well presented and easy to follow. All of the punches and blasts and things have consequence, it's not just pyew pyew okay who won. The surroundings are still pretty boring,though. Dark woods, gray mountain out of nowhere, more dark woods. The scenery doesn't do much except fall to bits around them, which is boring, but at least it's more interesting than a bunch of buildings that do nothing. I guess maybe they've only shown the bad action sequences so far because all of the good ones "spoil the plot"?
|
| # ¿ Apr 17, 2012 18:27 |
|
|
Lucid Delusion posted:The mountain doesn't exactly come out of nowhere. It's perfectly visible in a sequence prior to this fight. Well that's even better, then. In this clip, unestablished, it's a bit abrupt. Woods, woods, woods, woods, flying off NOW A MOUNTAIN, back to woods, woods, woods... I suppose if anything I'm sad they went back to the woods after having shown such potential for scenery change.
|
| # ¿ Apr 17, 2012 20:38 |
|
|
spikenigma posted:Just saw the Avengers, awesomeness from start to finish! - 10/10 and then some 
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2012 21:46 |
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:10 out of 10 is not "was better than I expected." 10 out of 10 is "this film was either perfect or so close to it as to make no odds." Numerical scores have always been terrible, though, so why get in a huff about it.
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2012 00:19 |
|
|
Gabbleduck posted:Every time that freaked me out, but each time I'd get really into the video and forget to go back and check it out. Well I'm not sure if this has any relevance, but Gaiman's The Graveyard Book has apparently been greenlit. I don't know if this means anything for American Gods, I suppose there could be two ongoing Gaiman projects at a time. e: vvv Maybe Tom Hardy will do a commentary track with it  vvv
Shanty fucked around with this message at May 1, 2012 around 10:51 |
| # ¿ May 1, 2012 10:46 |
|
|
Lasher posted:I would love that. Loved the Clock King in the animated show for some reason. Dude is boss at telling the time. Haha, does he like rob banks while people stand around looking at their watches, stunned, going "Wow, that's... That's spot on, yeah. Twelve oh six, like... To the second, drat..."
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2012 19:36 |
|
|
Deep Winter posted:All these Superman, Batman, Green Lantern movies being made. . . And I know we're never gonna get a Justice League movie. Can you imagine Nolan's hyperrealistic Batman universe also containing Superman and the Flash? Give Flash to the Crank guys and tell them to up their pace.
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2012 14:34 |
|
|
massive spider posted:I feel like I'm in the minority here but I've never really bought Jackman as Wolverine. I get him as leading man material sure, but I just can't see him as a legitimately dangerous scruffy angry guy. Yeah, he's a little too Hollywood Hunk. I would have preferred a proper scruffy-looking little scrapper. Like a hairier, slimmer Danny Devito, basically. Some ornery little rear end in a top hat who doesn't fit in, doesn't want to fit in, but has to try because he's burdened with this power and, like it or not, the other mutants are the only family he has. Jackman's just too pretty to embody that character 
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2012 12:15 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:I want black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay characters (and I like characters in these groups and have cited them in my earlier posts) to stay black, Indian, Asian, female, and gay. Please explain how this is an example of me "preferring things to stay white, cis-gendered, and male". If the status quo is negatively slanted against minority characters, then maintaining the status quo is a negative treatment of minority characters.
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2012 13:14 |
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:I don't think you can take much from that really. What, all the director has done are competent dance movies and no action movies so it must be terrible? If anything, that's going to be a massive boon to the choreography.
|
| # ¿ May 24, 2012 09:45 |
|
|
Alhazred posted:Gaiman already wrote Loki as part of the Sandman series and honestly I rather see him writing that than writing a really watered down PG version of the character. Well there's supposed to be an American Gods adaptation in the works, so at least we can get his take on general deityishness on the silver screen. Sort of. American Gods spoiler: even though Low Key isn't present in the story all that much, despite being one of the major players. But then again, that's like classic liesmithing.
|
| # ¿ May 30, 2012 14:40 |
|
|
Clearly Iron Man has to dig out his janky old made-in-a-cave suit to battle the guy. That, or Scrap-Iron Man shows up to save the day.
|
| # ¿ Aug 3, 2012 10:57 |
|
|
BrianWilly posted:"LOL THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT" uh except that it was? Both Ferrinus and you, TetsuoTW, directly referenced Black Widow's breakdown in the Avengers. I seriously hate to tell you both not to be dense, but at this point I'm not sure how else to put it. I think they were referencing every Joss Whedon strong female lead ever, not specifically Black Widow.
|
| # ¿ Aug 3, 2012 21:35 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Pretty sure Natalie Portman's character could be replaced by a dog with little issue. Ah yes, the Spelunky Damsel Swap theory. I want this to be an option on Netflix or something now, drat.
|
| # ¿ Aug 4, 2012 07:55 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:How does it feel to be the man with the worst opinions? Actually that sounds like it'd be right up his alley. I'm thinking something like a Brodyquest scenario.
|
| # ¿ Sep 13, 2012 09:51 |
|
|
Delzuma posted:Aren't you forgetting 90's proto-hipster Doctor Strange? Well there you go, now it HAS to be Cage. e: 
Shanty fucked around with this message at Sep 14, 2012 around 12:45 |
| # ¿ Sep 14, 2012 12:34 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:I hate that this exists so much. Cool dudes hanging out, having fun. What's to hate?
|
| # ¿ Oct 19, 2012 09:29 |
|
|
It kind of just looks like he'll be able to remotely interface with the suit. Maybe that's why it shows up in his bedroom. For a threesome.
|
| # ¿ Oct 25, 2012 12:40 |
|
|
One kind of weird thing about Electro is that while electricity seems to be kind of yellow in the comics, which matches his fabulous outfit, it tends to be blue in films. I guess I'm just looking forward to seeing what they do with his colour palette in the film. They obviously can't keep his current costume.
|
| # ¿ Nov 2, 2012 10:43 |
|
|
timeandtide posted:The film grain in the Man of Steel poster is awesome: it obscures all of the faces of the military personal and parts of Superman, but the light coming from (inside/slightly behind him?) lets us see his face clearly. I'm not sure about the light, really, but the rest of the poster works. It definitely ties in with the title being Man of Steel that his suit should look kind of manufactured, like metallic mail armor. If Superman is more weaponized in this film, it could be a sweet satire of the Marvel superheroes (who are all weapons of war). Or it could completely rehash them and fall into all the same traps. We'll see!
|
| # ¿ Dec 4, 2012 12:30 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 25, 2013 21:25 |
|
|
Travis343 posted:Has there ever been a good movie, comic book or otherwise, where nothing bad ever happened and things only get better for the protagonists? That just sounds like the worst thing ever. You get lame action movies occasionally where the hero is just completely unstoppable and just arbitrarily gets out of every situation the bad guys throw at him, and you know as a viewer that it's just a matter of time before he stomps his giant army boots up to the Main Bad Guy, kills him and gets the mcguffin. That would be the definition of a bad Superman movie. Apocalips or whoever throws a bunch of monsters at Superman who just beats them all up one by one until he gets to the mini-skirted one himself and punches him into a sun.
|
| # ¿ Dec 4, 2012 13:54 |
|
