|
thebardyspoon posted:Oh god imagine if they take the scene where he wakes up from Ultimates and use that as the finale for Captain America. Where he wakes up and freaks out thinking it's a Nazi trick, punches out Nick Fury, takes down a load of Shield agents, runs out and sees New York in 2012 (since I doubt they'll do Helicarriers) and then turns around and we see all 5 of the other Avengers are standing ready to take him down and then it cuts to the credits. I approve of this if it also includes a Lost-style brass "WWOOOOOONNNNNNNK" before cutting to black.
|
| # ¿ Jul 1, 2011 16:12 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 20:51 |
|
|
Golly gee, I wonder what the special thematic keyword for this installment will be! I hope it's "sex". Fear -> Escalation -> Sex. Oh yeah.
|
| # ¿ Jul 13, 2011 00:58 |
|
|
I was making GBS threads on Raimi's Spiderman movies before it was cool. Every tacky speech from Aunt May made me embarassed to even be watching the things. That's not a defense of the upcoming film, though. I don't have high hopes for a film made solely because Sony would otherwise lose the rights.
|
| # ¿ Jul 20, 2011 21:12 |
|
|
To me the number one highlight of that banner is Agent Coulson in the back getting his Star Wars pose on. Actually, on second thought, collectively that section is a lot more Charlie's Angels.
|
| # ¿ Jul 24, 2011 23:08 |
|
|
Lobok posted:Mark Ruffalo has his work cut out for him. Not only is he replaced by CGI half the time, but his co-stars are either ridiculously charismatic, good-looking, or both. Ruffalo always kind of reminded me of Lowtax, and you can't get more charismatic than that!
|
| # ¿ Jul 29, 2011 15:55 |
|
|
Rake Arms posted:I think DC's plans for a film universe died with Green Lantern. Expect future films to be unrelated to each other. There seems to be a delusional interest in making a Green Lantern 2, so I'd say the crossover dollar signs haven't faded from their eyes yet.
|
| # ¿ Aug 4, 2011 06:31 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Same thing that happens to everything else!!! I maintain that the punchline for that scene obviously should have been "it croaks!"
|
| # ¿ Aug 22, 2011 04:04 |
|
|
SpaceMost posted:I know more than a few people who avoid Facebook because it's "stupid," though they are incapable of clearly explaining why or in what way. I also know at least one person who will make up their mind about a movie before seeing it ("Superhero movie? It must suck.} and then nitpick it to death to justify their preconception. So what? What's the point here? I went to see TDK on opening night and didn't especially enjoy it (I found it heavy-handed with its themes, and disjointed in its editing/pacing). Reading elaborate motives into it is just weird; if there is such thing as an unassailably perfect film, the Dark Knight isn't it (and that's fine), so inventing ulterior motives for its detractors is silly and oversensitive.
|
| # ¿ Sep 16, 2011 08:13 |
|
|
I like Bale's Bruce Wayne because he's basically Patrick Bateman. EDIT: Patrick Batman
|
| # ¿ Sep 19, 2011 03:21 |
|
|
Electronico6 posted:I don't think there is going to be one. This is such a shame; the franchise really found its footing with Golden Army, which is one of the best adventure films of recent years. And Hellboy without Perlman or Del Toro would be such a bad move.
|
| # ¿ Sep 20, 2011 16:34 |
|
|
In the case of the Marvel films, it seems the choice of director is not that significant, barring severe incompetence. So much about the films is already mandated from above that there's just not a lot of room for individual style to poke through.
|
| # ¿ Sep 24, 2011 16:28 |
|
|
arioch posted:If anyone wants to argue costume practicability issues--keep in mind that at no point in any of the first 5 modern-ish live action Batman movies was Batman actually able to move/turn his head. Until the TDK costume. That was about covertly disgusing an impractical costume with a bit of movie magic. This is about overtly sacrificing practicality for boners. All the laboured explanations of why it's empowering or strategic to put an action character in heels are flimsy after-the-fact bullshit. Catwoman's not deciding to wear heels, because Catwoman's not a real person; male creators are the ones making that call. Yes, it's the status quo; it's a lovely status quo that ought to change. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at Sep 26, 2011 around 22:13 |
| # ¿ Sep 26, 2011 22:10 |
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:This makes me angry and I want to punch things. Why is criticism so often interpreted as full of frothing anger? If we can't call a dumb thing dumb then that's a lil weird.
|
| # ¿ Sep 26, 2011 22:32 |
|
|
Vintersorg posted:If you honestly give a gently caress about her shoes re-evaluate your goddamn life, holy poo poo. If you get intensely defensive whenever someone points out any issue whatsoever with media you enjoy, do the same.
|
| # ¿ Sep 27, 2011 00:12 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:Don't forget that all those complaints are done in SUPPORT of women! It's bad for women to appear on screen in movies, since they're just being used as sex symbols. Especially if they're wearing clothes that aren't utilitarian, like heels or skirts. How can you stay warm in sub-zero temperatures in a skirt? Even if she's never shown in a cold setting, she really needs to be wearing ski pants. Yes, if you roll your eyes at objectifying imagery then you must be anti-woman and/or a puritan. This makes complete sense.
|
| # ¿ Sep 27, 2011 01:31 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:I'll add those to the list of the other 5 pejoratives I've been called in the past page. I'm working on my Bingo card. I didn't call you those; in your strawman, you implicated others as being those things. There's an unfortunate trend of defending objectifying imagery by calling it empowering, and accusing its detractors of stifling women. It's a flimsy defense. There's certainly a time and place for sexy, but contrary to the beliefs of many comic fans, that time and place is not "anywhere and anytime a female character is onscreen/in-panel". I think you'd find people would be less bothered about this if there were some good counterexamples out there, but they're few and far between. Nobody here is saying high heels are objectifying in all cases, or that women are not allowed to express their sexuality. Nobody here wants to disallow women from wearing them, or even to disallow media depictions of women wearing them. However, it's eyebrow-raising when a series that sells itself on presenting grounded versions of the Batman rogues gallery chooses not to do the same for Catwoman, instead keeping her in conspicuous fetish gear that defies the barest pretense of logic. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at Sep 27, 2011 around 01:54 |
| # ¿ Sep 27, 2011 01:51 |
|
|
MjolnirMan posted:of her own choosing I might be more convinced by this if it weren't for the fact that the "choices" of fictional female characters always seem to line up perfectly with what their male creators and audiences find sexually exciting. Golly, it sure is nice that women in comics are always choosing to arch their backs and stick their asses in front of imaginary cameras they don't even know exist. Empowerment! EDIT:and now I am posting this quote:And Thor made sure not to get completely dressed before strutting around the townhouse after his shower. This poo poo happens in movies. If this were the inescapable norm for male action heroes, then you might have a case! Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at Sep 27, 2011 around 02:43 |
| # ¿ Sep 27, 2011 02:36 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:If you don't like female characters who dress sexily and openly flaunt their sexuality, maybe a movie with Catwoman in it is not for you. Every single version of Catwoman, literally EVER, from the comics, to the 60's show, to Burton, to the Animated series, has been this. Being a sexpot is something that goes along with the character, just like the burglar aspect of it. If you're all getting this pissed off at her wearing heels in this, I can't help but wonder what your reaction to her outfit in Batman Returns was. I imagine a lot of heads exploding, like that guy from Scanners. I think you're projecting a little here. You may or may not be foaming with defensive rage, but that doesn't mean everyone being critical is doing the same.
|
| # ¿ Sep 27, 2011 16:38 |
|
|
Three Red Lights posted:Theres a potentially discussion to be had here you just gotta push it away from being focused in terms of the word I used at the top of the page and never want to use again. At this time I would like to make note of the fact that I never said the Nolan films were "grounded", because they certainly are not upon examination. I merely said that they sell themselves as such (even if in a very superficial manner). Thankyougoodnight.
|
| # ¿ Sep 27, 2011 18:35 |
|
|
Timby posted:Supposedly Cillian Murphy has been spotted on the Dark Knight Rises set in LA. Better have the bag! Can't break that Murphy/Nolan bag-on-head streak. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at Sep 30, 2011 around 03:12 |
| # ¿ Sep 30, 2011 01:40 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Super classy of you, Supercar. Hahahaha, whoops.
|
| # ¿ Sep 30, 2011 03:12 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It's a movie about the Avengers. It looks and sounds like a movie about the Avengers. What more do you honestly want? I want to see good, interesting films, whether they're the first or sixth in a series, and regardless of the number of leads. It's crazy that you're using the word "butthurt" to describe people who don't happen to be impressed or excited. This may sound crazy, but it takes more than "This movie has the correct guys in it!!" to excite some people.
|
| # ¿ Oct 13, 2011 04:48 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:The Avengers has a roster of 6-7 superheroes from 5 prior blockbusters starring in one giant team movie that's been teased for half a decade. Is that really not interesting enough on its own, to just give the movie a shot in the theater because it's what 5+ years of hard work have been building to? The trailer really has to sell you on a concept it's been advertising like crazy for five years? I've found those 5 films rather dull, and part of the reason is BECAUSE they've been serving primarily to advertise this one. The heavy-handed effort to connect them to each other and build hype for the teamup film has sapped them of any strong character or message of their own. Ironically, this means that just seeing the characters doesn't actually do much to get me amped for this. So no, the premise isn't interesting enough on its own. What happens when there's a post-credits teaser at the end of this film? And the next? The whole business model of this entire series is to create an interminable chain of hype, always based on the promise of what's next, rather than the strength of what you're currently watching. It's post-credits teasers all the way down. mind the walrus posted:I don't really give a poo poo if you're excited or not, but I will call you out on hating a trailer--especially one for a movie so well-advertised and established as The Avengers--as kind-of stupid. I don't "hate" the trailer, because hate is too strong a word for something so mediocre. Lack of interest does not equal frothing rage.
|
| # ¿ Oct 13, 2011 06:06 |
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:If you didn't enjoy their previous movies, I have to wonder why you act surprised. The Marvel movies have been very formulaic. That formula has been very enjoyable to many many people. How is it justified to have the expectation that this movie will break this formula, and then be pissed off if it predictably doesn't? Who's acting surprised? The problem with the "What were you expecting?" defense is that an unsurprising flaw is still a flaw.
|
| # ¿ Oct 13, 2011 07:20 |
|
|
ZombieParts posted:Dude, Thor was in it...so was Iron Man. It's going to be awesome. Your brain is just shocked into disbelief. You'll be okay once the film is out. "Dude... the film has the correct guys in it!" Listen to yourself. I should hope it takes more than a person in the right costume to trigger complete adoration.
|
| # ¿ Oct 13, 2011 17:19 |
|
|
Soonmot posted:For people complaining about the Avengers tie ins in the previous movies: Do you just not like the linked universe concept? As a comic fan, the world building showing that, yes, these movies are in the same place is one of my favorite aspects. No, the idea of a shared universe is fine on paper, even satisfying on some level. But while they're successfully creating movies that technically coexist in the same setting, that in itself doesn't automatically make for good cinema. The heavy focus on consistency and cross-promotion between the films has left them pretty stylistically bland and committee-ish, and this Avengers trailer makes it look like the worst offender thus far. If the individual films had more panache and variety, the fact that they coexist might be worth a drat.
|
| # ¿ Oct 13, 2011 21:47 |
|
|
I think some are really underestimating the degree of stylistic contortion it takes to make these stories compatible with each other. I'd like to point out two things: -The most effective way to adapt a comic character to the screen is not the same for all characters, EVEN IF they exist within the same comic universe. Superhero comics are good at handwaving away vast differences in scale and frankensteining fantasy stories together with sci-fi stories. Films are not as good at this, and need to define their universes well. The Marvel films could have chosen to tailor their films to each individual hero, but instead their tailored them to co-exist with Iron Man, and that meant compromising, because: -There's more to making films cross-compatible than a checklist of what is or is not technically possible in each story's setting. Harry Potter and Trainspotting are both set in Scotland around the turn of the 80s/90s, and there's nothing literally contradictory about their settings. if you obsess only over literal textual details, this makes them perfectly cross-compatible. But the idea of uniting their narratives is, of course, utterly preposterous for reasons of style, theme, and tone. Thor suffered considerably because of the New Mexico sequences (among many other things); they felt small-potatoes and directionless relative to the high fantasy Asgard sequences. But those New Mexico scenes are there so that we can have Coulson show up, and so that we can meet mundane humans with approximately the same snark levels as the cast of Iron Man. The scenes serve tonal continuity for the series, but they irreparably damage the standalone film. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at Oct 15, 2011 around 22:02 |
| # ¿ Oct 15, 2011 21:58 |
|
|
And the fact that he gets sent to Earth has no ultimate consequence aside from the fact that Thor Meets a Character From Iron Man. I mean, it's such a short exile that it amounts to a light spanking from Dad. The whole actual plot (Asgardian political upheaval) could have been preserved with any punishment not involving going to Earth, and the film would have been more coherent for it. But no, the punishment HAS to be to appear in a few light comedy scenes in the desert because that's how you connect it to Iron Man.
|
| # ¿ Oct 15, 2011 22:10 |
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:It also it shows how he goes from being selfish to caring And this incredibly banal piece of character development, this absolute sub-joke of a thematic statement, can only happen on planet Earth because mumble mumble
|
| # ¿ Oct 15, 2011 23:00 |
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:That is his origin? That's it? Okay, let's say we take an alternative tactic to fixing Thor; let's make his exile on Earth mean something. Branagh's director anyway, so let's really Hamlet the gently caress out of this thing. Years on Earth, maybe decades. Thor gets to experience lasting humiliation and self-doubt living the hobo life, Loki does some real damage as king. Oh wait, then the story can't be a flippant, casual wisp of a tale that takes place over the course of two days with a wink and a smile. And then how would it ever fit in with Iron Man?
|
| # ¿ Oct 15, 2011 23:22 |
|
|
You just wrote a very long post about in-universe plausibility right after SMG said that plausibility's not the problem, narrative and dramatic value is.
|
| # ¿ Oct 16, 2011 20:51 |
|
|
I presented that alternative scenario because, in the film that exists, the fact that Thor's exile completely lacks consequence is a problem that hurts the movie. If positing one possible alternative is not an acceptable way to discuss a problem with the film, then I don't know what the gently caress. Also, for the record, I'm not asking for "grimdark", or for great high art. I'm asking for a story that works.
|
| # ¿ Oct 17, 2011 18:21 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:I can't help but like Captain America on a superficial level, but good GOD, there's a ton of subtext that could have been mined. America's response to the Nazi regime is to have a German scientist create a blond, blue-eyed, superhuman? Whose first act of heroism is to liberates a camp full of foreigners and minorities? For a film that tried really hard to avoid being obnoxiously "USA #1!!!!", it's funny to see that the Aryan God clad in US colors is single-handedly winning the war, with a rag-tag force of ethnic stereotypes trailing behind him. Captain America had the best chance of being a successful work because the period camp allowed it to differentiate itself from the Marvel House Style. Unfortunately, it fails because it overlooks this kind of fertile ground, has a rather disjointed script, doesn't call Cap out on any character flaws, and can't escape the shadow of the better films it weakly nods at.
|
| # ¿ Oct 18, 2011 16:05 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You do know that Nazis actually were hunting for artifacts in the 30's, right? That's not the only reference to Raiders, and Raiders in turn isn't the only film that Captain America references.
|
| # ¿ Oct 18, 2011 18:17 |
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:It's not a reference to Raiders... It's just history. The villain is literally disintegrated by the power of his prized supernatural artifact. And even if you don't accept the desert-digging line as a reference in itself, the first cube scene as a whole is definitely cut from Indy cloth. I mean, Jesus Christ, the film wears its affections on its drat sleeve. See, I'm not talking about references in the winking REMEMBER THAT sense, or in the Tommy Westphall all-these-fictional-universes-are-connected sense. I'm talking about visual/dramatic quotations and homages. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at Oct 18, 2011 around 19:31 |
| # ¿ Oct 18, 2011 19:28 |
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:Lots of villains die by their own hubris, is that always a Raiders reference? Also, the Red Skull isn't disintegrated, what movie were you watching? A wave of energy passes across him, and you can see parts of his face disappear before he gets zapped away. Yeah, it's done in a vague enough way that he can come back from the cosmic wherever for a sequel, but the setup and the shot framing are a deliberate quotation. Trying to overgeneralize it as a garden variety hubris-death does you no favours. It makes it seem like you wouldn't acknowledge a clear reference unless it was literally the ark of the covenant killing Red Skull.
|
| # ¿ Oct 18, 2011 19:38 |
|
|
I actually wasn't aware of any quote from Johnston on the matter. I don't see why you're being so defensive about this. References in films aren't bad in themselves. The main issue with Captain America is that although it aims high, it fails to escape the shadow of its aspirations. PS: Don't use quotes to ascribe phrases to people that they haven't said. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at Oct 18, 2011 around 20:01 |
| # ¿ Oct 18, 2011 19:58 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:Yeah, you're a comics nerd for thinking that. Just to keep score, Teleportation into a starry nebula: An abundantly clear and widely-recognizable visual reference to Thor Villain's face disintegrated by his prized supernatural artifact: Not at all a clear or recognizable visual reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark
|
| # ¿ Oct 18, 2011 21:20 |
|
|
SharpyShuffle posted:Oh ok, he was the cause of the group coming together in the comics 40years ago so they'll just ignore the basics of moviemaking. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/fea...-scenes-uwe.php quote:needs to go on an island (see ALONE IN THE DARK 4) or solve a murder. I was really angry, because I don’t think, that you’d ignore so many things, that apply to story telling basics! MOVIEMAKING BASICS: -Characters need to go to an island -Recurring villains are a no-no
|
| # ¿ Nov 9, 2011 16:20 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 20:51 |
|
|
Frankly, I'm disappointed he didn't spike the ball and start showboating. By doing the batdance.
|
| # ¿ Dec 20, 2011 05:53 |
|
