|
zoux posted:That'll go over well on the internet. At least "how do you find space to feel your specific grief when the whole world is filled with tragedy" is a more relatable emotional problem for something character-driven than "how do you handle being trapped on a magical island with a smoke monster." Hopefully The Leftovers just leaves the disappearances as the one magical element and moves on from there instead of wasting time continuously introducing new ones.
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
Yeah, I've seen a few episodes of Orphan Black now and it didn't really do much for me. It's a neat trick that Tatiana Maslany is able to act against someone who isn't there, but being able to create a bunch of different characters seems like a fairly normal task for a competent actor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
xeria posted:I would imagine it's less about playing different characters as it is playing them all against each other in the same scene. Calling doing that very well a "trick" seems like it's doing kind of a disservice to acting in general, and her in particular. From what I've seen, they try to avoid having them on-screen at the same time too much, which reduces the difficulty of that a lot. And even if you think "trick" is too dismissive, my point is that it's not the element that I see being (over) praised whenever the show gets mentioned.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:Along with the best live action version of Lois Lane as well. Erica Durance isn't a better live action Lois Lane than Margot Kidder. Better than Amy Adams is insanity.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Other TNT news is that the plan to turn perennial cable movie fodder "Shooter" into a TV series. The movie starred Mark Wahlberg as Bob Lee Swagger, a retired Marine sniper who gets framed for an assassination attempt. It was an okay movie that was mostly notable for the epic amount of people Marky Mark kills in it. It's an amazing movie. It maintains its worldview, this perfect survivalist fantasy, with an astonishing clarity and consistency. It's basically flawless. I don't see a TV show keeping it up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:1) DC "movie universe" consists of man of steel and bvs The plot is a direct follow-up to Man of Steel, apparently starting during the events of the end of that movie. Amy Adams is returning at Lois Lane. Toxxupation posted:It also helps that Tonally the mcu movies have been very different, I mean cap 2 was again basically a thriller and guardians was essentially a misplaced 70s scifi film made on a AAA budget The MCU films are tonally very similar, they're all lightly comic and maintain an ironic distance from the material. They applies this to different genres (conspiracy thriller, space opera, buddy cop action). That's basically what the Marvel brand is, and the "shared universe" promise, since most people don't care about plot, is a promise that the tone will be maintained no matter what genres they might expand to. If they make a psychedelic Dr. Strange, you can rest assured it will be a lightly comic and ironically distant psychedelia. It's turned out to be a powerful brand to have, and it's even produced a couple of good movies (Cap 2, Guardians). Green Lantern was DC's attempt to do the same, and it was god awful. So they've dropped the ironic distance and, unfortunately, the comedic aspects that were present even in the Nolan movies. At least, they did in Man of Steel, hopefully Batman v Superman corrects this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Captain America 1 is ironic? Ghostrider 2 is light? You're right that Cap 1 is a mild exception, I should have mentioned that. It's lightly comic, but it doesn't think the idea of Captain America is ridiculous once he actually starts standing up for what he believes in. They ran the hell away from that for Cap 2. The Incredible Hulk is also a little more distinct. The tonal similarity got a lot tighter once it became clear that Iron Man was the star and they started hiring TV directors who are used to copying an established tone while putting a little of their own spin on it. They're, of course, not "the exact same," which is why I said "very similar." Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance isn't an MCU movie. It was Columbia Pictures (i.e., Sony). Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Jack Skeleton posted:There's really no excuse DC has. Yeah, it would be better described as a justification: by not demanding a shared universe they've allowed distinct filmmakers to present their own vision. Christopher Nolan can have his Batman retire at the end of his trilogy, while Tony Stark is going to have to get back into that suit in movie after movie.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Yeah, losing someone as inventive and interesting as Edgar Wright really shows that drawback. Meanwhile, DC has been able to let loose Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder, and are rumored to be bringing David Ayer onboard for a Suicide Squad movie. Joss Whedon, Shane Black, and James Gunn are interesting writers, but they vary from solid (Gunn and Black) to poor (Whedon) as directors.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:You think that DC doesn't have a thumb on what their movies look like or end up being? The fact that you have a corporation wide mandate to have "no jokes", and now a steady effort to ape the Nolan brand of grit and grim tells you different. Marvel had GotG and Cap America 2 this year, both movies showing creators pushing the boundaries of main stream movie making ("limited" by a need for a good ending, interesting characters, and sharp dialogue). WB/DC of course influence how the movies they make end up being, that's in the nature of being a production company. But there hasn't been anything comparable to Disney/Marvel driving away Jon Favreau and Edgar Wright. All reports are that Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder are being allowed to tell the stories they want to tell. Nolan's Batman movies have a bunch of jokes in them, they just don't have a comic tone. Man of Steel, while more serious, ends on Clark Kent grinning goofily after Lois Lane delivers a pun. What WB/DC is talking about there, if that rumor is even real at all, is clearly that they aren't going to try to duplicate Marvel's comedic/ironic take on the material, as they tried to do with Green Lantern. The last good DC movie is Man of Steel, which is better than anything in the MCU, as was The Dark Knight. Even if you don't care for the tone, they're visually impeccable movies. Arrow is, admittedly, trash, which is part of why it's nice that DC is going to be making completely independent TV shows that have a chance of being better. There's also no risk of what happened with Agents of SHIELD, where a show only has a chance to rise to the level of mediocrity when one of the films lets them react to an event in the metaplot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:also the main character's dad recommends he kill a bus full of kids and the movie treats both this development and his dad in general as wise and someone to aspire to be over an insane sociopath Superman's primary arc is deciding that he's not going to be what either of his fathers want him to be. You can't seriously think that the movie is arguing that he should have let a bus full of children die. You're supposed to empathize with his concern over how to raise his son, not want a bunch of kids to be dead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:Except that's supported by nothing in the movie. He has a speech about how his father was worried that if he revealed who he was, people would reject him. Shortly thereafter, he reveals himself, putting his faith in humanity. This is him rejecting what Jonathan Kent wanted him to be. He rejects what Jor El wants him to be when he kills the last Kryptonian and destroys the machinery that could be used to make more Kryptonians.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
If someone suggests that perhaps a bus load of children should have been allowed to die, they're not the moral center of a movie. Superman is the moral center of the movie, because, among other things, he doesn't let a bus load of children die.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Oh no, "property damage." He saved as many people as he could. He wasn't able to save everybody. It's not like he wanted to wreck Metropolis, but he was up against a better-trained opponent who had all his same powers. You see his morals when he repeatedly risks his life or being outed on behalf of other people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:He saved like four people. I don't actually care, it's just emblematic of the larger issue of the movie just asking us to assume traits of its protagonist. He saved every human on the planet. He saves people throughout the movie. It's not asking us to "assume traits" if the movie repeatedly demonstrates it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:My point is, the death of Zod is utterly tensionless. Supes hasn't expressed any disinclination toward the act of killing beforehand (am I supposed to believe he wasn't already trying to kill Zod?), and he already got over the whole "killing the last of your kind" thing. I don't know enough about the character in the movie to understand that moment. That's the moment of his final break with both of his fathers: he's using his full strength against a bully and there can be no more connection for him to Krypton at all. Jor El was only willing to kill once he'd decided that everyone on Krypton was already dead. It's Zod who argued for an authority to chose to kill, and what hurts Superman is accepting that argument (and thereby killing Zod). He's moved to a place of having no external moral restrictions - he becomes a superman - and his scream is one of anguished freedom. Also, the three-way battle between Superman, the military, and Faora and Nam-Ek in Smallville is the best superpower fight scene in cinema.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Sober posted:Sounds like Madam Secretary should become an American warlord I'd definitely check out the show if it was called American Warlord.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Is anybody else watching season 3 of The Newsroom? It's still pretty bad, though the awful romance elements have been aggressively toned down. The Internet remains evil.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
It's still a bad show - the basic premise of creating a noble news agency is laughably misguided and unappealing - but, yeah, this was an okay start to the season.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
DivisionPost posted:Gonna recycle a relevant post I made last summer. How can an event say "gently caress your religion?" Religion has proven itself able to accommodate facts a hell of a lot more disruptive than a bunch of people disappearing. Similarly, nothing is beyond scientific investigation, just the current understanding revealed through science. Like, I'm fine with the dual conceits of society going to hell and some folks vanishing, and open to that producing an interesting show, but the idea of a connection between the two is totally unconvincing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:What does a powerful employer have to gain by calling out his subordinate? Belittling someone on Twitter is its own reward.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
timp posted:Good point. Additionally, I don't understand why people keep saying they liked True Detective. If you want to see Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey act you should just watch The Hunger Games and Dallas Buyer's Club, respectively! Except nobody says that the only reason to watch True Detective is because Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey happen to be in it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Die Hard is fun to watch even if I know Bruce Willis isn't going to die John McClane is the poster boy for how much more satisfying it is to see the hero win if he mostly loses along the way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 02:44
|
|