|
The most encouraging comment is "the first Marvel movie to have a great third act". A few have had decent ones (Cap 1, Cap 2, Iron Man 3), and the others have had lousy ones (Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, Thor 2). So, having a third act really come together in a Marvel movie would be something new. In general modern blockbusters have been REALLY BAD on that front.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Deakul posted:
Comparing GotG with The Dark Knight does not fill me with confidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Comparing GotG with The Dark Knight does not fill me with confidence. TDK was amazing but that's besides the point. I was remarking on how GotG is considered a sequel to anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Comparing GotG with The Dark Knight does not fill me with confidence. We get it, dude!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Wendell posted:We get it, dude! Look, this is a brand new thread. It has not yet been properly established in here how much I hate The Dark Knight and it is very important that this be done.  In other news, $350 and these toys can be yours. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
To be fair it's kind of healthy for people to hate on The Dark Knight. If you don't you can end up with a Bat-fan infestation and let met tell you son those are hard to get rid of. I would also totally buy those toys if money were no object. That Groot is so cool looking I would buy it even if it came with a pussy-repelling magnet installed inside it that I could never turn off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:To be fair it's kind of healthy for people to hate on The Dark Knight. If you don't you can end up with a Bat-fan infestation and let met tell you son those are hard to get rid of. I assure you it does. Spatula City posted:The most encouraging comment is "the first Marvel movie to have a great third act". A few have had decent ones (Cap 1, Cap 2, Iron Man 3), and the others have had lousy ones (Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, The Avengers, Thor 2). Gunn's the best director they've had since Ang Lee, who barely counts, so I'd bet this will be a lot better structured than most of the others. Doflamingo posted:Early buzz for Man of Steel was off the charts, too, so I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. Your opinion of Man of Steel aside (it ruled), this is such a weird thing to say. Sometimes movies get hyped and then you don't like them? Man of Steel is the best example?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Your opinion of Man of Steel aside (it ruled), this is such a weird thing to say. Sometimes movies get hyped and then you don't like them? Man of Steel is the best example? Don't be dense. He's saying that oftentimes movies get rave pre-release reviews from advance screenings and the actual consensus upon release is much more muddled and divisive-- which Man of Steel's consensus unquestionably was and is regardless of how you or anyone personally feels about it (it sucked).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Armani posted:Can I please have a movie about Rescue? gently caress that. I want a movie about the Gwyneth Paltrow taking an Iron Man suit making it baby blue and pink and having her adventure be something silly like beautification of the mid east. Don Cheadle is straight man having to keep things right as she goes along. RDJ is a dude in a bathrobe walking around on the phone giving Gwyneth bad advice. Surreal as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Armani posted:Can I please have a movie about Rescue? Only if they recast Potts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Gatts posted:gently caress that. I want a movie about the Gwyneth Paltrow taking an Iron Man suit making it baby blue and pink and having her adventure be something silly like beautification of the mid east. The Avengers' Wives where Gweneth Paltrow, Emily VanCamp, Natalie Portman, Jeremy Renner and Evangeline Lily talk about how hard it is to be in relationships with the Avengers while sewing costumes and baking pies for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:The Avengers' Wives where Gweneth Paltrow, Emily VanCamp, Natalie Portman, Jeremy Renner and Evangeline Lily talk about how hard it is to be in relationships with the Avengers while sewing costumes and baking pies for them. You forgot Liv Tyler and Elizabeth Olsen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
I always forget The Incredible Hulk is supposed to be part of the MCU.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:I always forget The Incredible Hulk is supposed to be part of the MCU. You mean aside from Downy showing up at the end and it being directly referenced and shown in Iron Man 2?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Don't be dense. He's saying that oftentimes movies get rave pre-release reviews from advance screenings and the actual consensus upon release is much more muddled and divisive-- which Man of Steel's consensus unquestionably was and is regardless of how you or anyone personally feels about it (it sucked). The real issue is that it'll get ridiculously overpraised like Iron Man, Avengers, or Winter Soldier - and continue coasting on mediocrity while offending nobody. Like Iron Man is approximately as good as the Robocop remake, and Cap 2 is a spy thriller slightly outclassed by loving Salt with Angelina Jolie. They're not awful films, but Jesus Christ enough already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:You mean aside from Downy showing up at the end and it being directly referenced and shown in Iron Man 2? To be fair the RDJ scene makes no goddamn sense even with the retcon, and the Iron Man 2 references were pretty subtle for your average moviegoer. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The real issue is that it'll get ridiculously overpraised like Iron Man, Avengers, or Winter Soldier - and continue coasting on mediocrity while offending nobody. I normally make it a point not to engage you, but you're talking objectively about subjective preference here. I honestly thought you'd at least be above that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Who cares if he doesn't preface everything by saying it's his opinion, of course it is, everything is everybody's opinion who gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
In my opinion, the real issue is that it'll get ridiculously overpraised like Iron Man, Avengers, or Winter Soldier - and continue coasting on mediocrity while offending nobody. Like Iron Man is, in my opinion, approximately as good as the Robocop remake, and (in my opinion) Cap 2 is a spy thriller slightly outclassed by loving Salt with Angelina Jolie. They're not awful films, in my opinion, but Jesus Christ enough already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Saying they're coasting on inoffensive mediocrity is a bit unfair though. Iron Man still has always stood on RDJ's presence and Winter Soldier is the first good action movie in the MCU and one of the few superhero movies with great fight choreography. While I think there is some validity to the notion that the Marvel films are generally likable because of their inoffensiveness, that doesn't mean there aren't actual kernels of quality that people latch onto.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I normally make it a point not to engage you, but you're talking objectively about subjective preference here. I honestly thought you'd at least be above that. What would possibly lead to you to believe this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In my opinion, the real issue is that it'll get ridiculously overpraised like Iron Man, Avengers, or Winter Soldier - and continue coasting on mediocrity while offending nobody. Aha! You've admitted it's all just your opinion! In MY opinion, which is equally as correct because it's all just poop and pee in a nonsense-vacuum, James Gunn (creator of cool movie about the shittiness of the superhero genre Super) will have made a pretty good film hampered by executive meddling and the need to contain bucketloads of Joss Whedon / Tony Stark style humor and fit some dumb metanarrative we won't know about fully until 2017.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Saying they're coasting on inoffensive mediocrity is a bit unfair though. Iron Man still has always stood on RDJ's presence and Winter Soldier is the first good action movie in the MCU and one of the few superhero movies with great fight choreography. While I think there is some validity to the notion that the Marvel films are generally likable because of their inoffensiveness, that doesn't mean there aren't actual kernels of quality that people latch onto. That's what I mean though: things like 'has fight choreography' are good, but lots of films have fight choreography and are well-shot. Like, here's the bit where Cap fights a plane on a bridge in Cap 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYSgkqc9EWI It's a really basic setup, but it doesn't really work as a big setpiece and capstone to his escape from SHIELD. It's a big fuckoff harrier thing firing a gatling gun inches from the hero, but the cinematography does little to emphasize its size or power. And that plane was sent out specifically to intimidate him!  Look at it. It's tiny. And here are the road spikes underneath:  Note how the camera is pointing down at them from a relatively high angle, with plenty of negative space above. They look small, like you could step over them. This is how you'd film someone's lawn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Yes, you can step over them. But can you drive over them? No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Yes, you can step over them. But can you drive over them? No. The shot choice is a bad one if you're hoping to convey 'menace' or 'oppression', or anything besides the basic plot exposition (i.e. "he can't drive there").
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
No. It's a fine shot because it does what it needs to do. The menace is clear. You don't need a big over the top shot to show it. It would be out of place in the film. Which tried to play things relatively simple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
And who's to say that the spikes and the plane weren't shot to look smaller to convey that they're genuinely not big threats to Captain America, which is exactly happens in the scene? If this were any other film the usual suspects would be tripping all over themselves to proclaim how totally planned and artistic and nuanced such a choice is and how it perfectly shows what the omniscient filmmakers intended for us to feel about SHIELD, but in a Marvel film this is brushed off as a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:No. It's a fine shot because it does what it needs to do. The menace is clear. You don't need a big over the top shot to show it. It would be out of place in the film. Which tried to play things relatively simple. It's nothing to do with being big and over the top. It's basic visual storytelling. I'd simply shoot the spikes from a lower angle, and from closer up, so that they take up the entire left side of the frame, like this: (original)  (re-do)  These are the same object, simply depicted from a slightly different angle and position. The latter emphasizes the height of the spikes, and the fact that they form a barrier. Note that in my version, the spikes overlap with the bars of the railing in the background, creating a sort of cage effect. In the original composition, the two objects barely overlap at all, leaving a big, flat line between them. As a bonus, I would precede this shot with a wider shot that shows the whole length of the spike barrier, before cutting to the close-up. As you can see from the jet picture posted above, the bridge is six lanes wide. The original shot shows only a fraction of the barrier's true length. That's what? A square metre? There's little sense of scale.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Only if they recast Potts. What's your objection to Paltrow? I like her because she projects the authority to control someone who no one else can get a handle on, but they've never made her a dower sourpuss who's just waiting to jump at the first chance to be a wet blanket. She also really hasn't had a hell of a lot to straight up do in the movies. I like what she does get though. She is also way more jazzed about her work, as opposed to Natalie "pretty much dragging myself though this movie if I'm not talking" Portman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Fishylungs posted:What's your objection to Paltrow? I like her because she projects the authority to control someone who no one else can get a handle on, but they've never made her a dower sourpuss who's just waiting to jump at the first chance to be a wet blanket. I find her to be thoroughly boring and uninteresting as an actress. And if you've ever read a single gossip site you know she's a horrible human being.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's nothing to do with being big and over the top. It's basic visual storytelling. I'd simply shoot the spikes from a lower angle, and from closer up, so that they take up the entire left side of the frame, like this: Okay...I see what you're saying, but I don't agree. It just seems like a nitpick to me. It's just storytelling through the visual medium. The jet and the spikes are both a threat to Captain America. But he's just so loving good he can get around them fairly easy. Sure, maybe they could've had the spikes go up about 20 feet and be this insane crazy shot that is really stylized and cool. But the film wasn't going for that. It was going for something more reserved. If that didn't work for you, that's totally OK. And you've explained why it didn't work for you, just as I have explained why it worked for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I find her to be thoroughly boring and uninteresting as an actress. And if you've ever read a single gossip site you know she's a horrible human being. How dare you. The only garbage media I consume are comic movies and comic books. Plus if I stopped doing anything involved with horrible human beings I wouldn't be anywhere near this site. Or anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Fishylungs posted:How dare you. The only garbage media I consume are comic movies and comic books. Well ignoring who she actually is, I really don't like here as an actress at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The jet and the spikes are both a threat to Captain America. But he's just so loving good he can get around them fairly easy. It would be a lot more engaging if the jet and spikes were really intimidating but Captain America was so amazing he overcomes them, rather than communicating that they aren't a threat before he bypasses them. You know, build tension, then release it. This is, after all, supposed to be an escalation from the elevator fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Okay...I see what you're saying, but I don't agree. It just seems like a nitpick to me. It's just storytelling through the visual medium. The jet and the spikes are both a threat to Captain America. But he's just so loving good he can get around them fairly easy. Sure, maybe they could've had the spikes go up about 20 feet and be this insane crazy shot that is really stylized and cool. But the film wasn't going for that. It was going for something more reserved. If that didn't work for you, that's totally OK. And you've explained why it didn't work for you, just as I have explained why it worked for me. They're not 20 feet tall though. They're the same 1-foot tall spikes, but shot better. And these decisions add up. I mean, you can argue that filming the takedown of the jet in the same offhand way that you'd film a guy walking down his driveway says "something mumble mumble banality of evil(?)", but I think it would make more narrative sense to introduce the jet as this unstoppable menacing thing, and then have the hero effortlessly destroy it in a way that proves his might. Like, if 'it's not supposed to be interesting', why am I watching it - and paying to watch it? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
That's what was happening though. I mean, if you weren't feeling tense during that scene it's probably because you know he's going to get away, but the scene is really about Captain America taking down that jet super quickly without much of a thought. And that's what makes that scene fun. His efficiently in taking down a loving jet with a giant machine gun.quote:Like, if 'it's not supposed to be interesting', why am I watching it - and paying to watch it? I don't know. You don't seem to like these movies at all, so that's perhaps a question on you rather than the filmmakers. Some people love Paranormal Activity movies, I personally don't because they are uninteresting to me. So I don't pay to see or watch them. 
CelticPredator fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:His efficiently in taking down a loving jet with a giant machine gun. And the point is that's it's not shot as "a loving jet!" with a "GIANT machine gun."
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Is it not? They show the jet, and then REALLY huge closeup of the jet's machine gun firing. It's a really, really big reveal shot and is one of the few stylized (I guess for 3D) shots in the film. I'd post the link to it, but it's a cam bootlegged version. But the point is, it is. Maybe it's not the way you would've shot it, but the message is absolutely clear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
SMG posted an official clip
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:That's what was happening though. I mean, if you weren't feeling tense during that scene it's probably because you know he's going to get away, but the scene is really about Captain America taking down that jet super quickly without much of a thought. And that's what makes that scene fun. His efficiently in taking down a loving jet with a giant machine gun. Again, though, that's the plot. I'm talking about the storytelling: not what happens, but how it happens. You can compare it to the scene where Cap leaps onto the massive plane at the end of Cap 1 (0:20-1:45). It's a bit different because the plane is not trying to menace Cap but to escape, but every shot has a clear purpose. It's actually much less flashy than this one, despite having way more elements in play (four different characters in two different locations, plus dialogue). SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Jul 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
All these superhero clips look really silly without context
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 05:58
|
|