|
The MCU is deliberately designed so that people can jump in and essentially miss nothing as long as they've absorbed the characters through cultural osmosis, which is hard not to do nowadays. Things have been retconned back and forth, characters reset their arcs constantly, and massive earth-shaking events can be essentially ignored. If you want to skip movies based on their relevance in terms of canon, and not necessarily characters (which I assume is why you want to skip The Incredible Hulk,) you can throw Captain America 2 and 3 right out. Iron Man 2 and 3 don't affect much in the canon even if 3 is the second-best Marvel movie. Age of Ultron meant nothing aside from the introduction of Scarlet Witch who is a completely different character now anyways. Really if you just want the ones that Endgame builds off of you're forcing yourself to watch Thor The Dark World and Ant-Man and the Wasp.
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
James Woods posted:I somewhat want to include The Incredible Hulk because all she knows about him is that he's an angry green monster and she has no context of him being a scientist but even that movie doesn't really get into his origin because of the dismal Ang Lee movie. I mean, truth is I actually think Incredible Hulk is not bad. I’d say it’s in third place behind Iron Man 3 and Cap America 1. The hard part is that on several of these movies, quality and importance to the canon are at odds. Ant Man and the Wasp and Thor 2 are two of the worst MCU movies but they also set up two of the most important elements of Endgame, but movies that do next to nothing for Endgame are Thor Ragnarok, Iron Man 3, GotG 1... so like, most of the better ones. I haven’t seen Captain Marvel but it sounds dire, but that one might still be important because otherwise Carol’s gonna do her two minutes of screen time in Endgame and your girlfriend’s gonna be like “wait who is this.”
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 07:08
|
|
|
Jenny Agutter posted:lmao I'm the most active poster in Blockbuster video. it's chill that people begged for a subforum for exactly these types of threads and it was immediately forgotten. it speaks well of the forum that posters actually do want in depth film discussion and zizek quotes. This is the crucial difference - BV was made specifically on the suggestion of the kinds of people who would post in it. Any accusations of it being a “posting ghetto” are immediately bullshit. The existence of Sci-Fi Wi-Fi only further proves a point - when people said they wanted a place to post without having to get super analytical and heady, what they actually meant was they wanted a place to debate the canon of fictional universes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
WeedlordGoku69 posted:tbf Sci-Fi Wi-Fi isn't actually movie-exclusive, one of the best threads in that sub is a guy going through the Command and Conquer canon and how batshit wild it is Well, that’s what I mean - C&C isn’t even a movie. But it has a canon. CineD is a spot significantly less accepting of talking about its medium solely based on the merits of its canon and other aspects of fandom - so that’s the example brought up when people ran into conflict trying to post about it here in CineD. I’m not badmouthing SFWF - I view it as a significantly better and more successful version of BV.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Frankly, BBV exists entirely because CD has a toxicity problem and there's no other rational explanation for why it was made. So what’s your rational explanation as to why everyone posts here instead?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 03:21
|
|
|
Arist posted:I'd argue that "Black Panther is a white supremacist film" is not an opinion worth seriously considering, Considering it’s a movie that portrays working with the CIA as a good thing, it’s worth considering at the least. And the post you quoted doesn’t say “Black Panther is a white supremacist film,” it says “the protagonist of Black Panther upholds white supremacy because he works with the CIA.” Arist posted:as well as the idea that comic book movies are only good when they're serious, gritty, and minimize the appeal of their original medium. Nobody said this. And how would being serious and gritty minimize the appeal of comic books? That’s a loaded statement, plenty of comic books are serious and gritty. Like, Watchmen? Come on. One of the most, if not THE most, beloved Batman stories is about his sidekick being paralyzed and sexually assaulted. Blockbuster Video was created specifically because the kinds of people who claimed they would post in it asked for it. (I don’t remember if the discussion happened in here or QCS, I think it was the latter.) It doesn’t make sense to view it as a “posting ghetto” when the rules of it specifically disallow the things that you claim to not like about CineD. It was even a top-level forum until just recently. For an actual example of a “posting ghetto,” you can look at the thread titled the “Snyderdome” in CineD, which was requested by and created by people who hate its subject and the discussion around it, yet it is posted in more frequently than the entirety of Blockbuster Video. Pirate Jet fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jun 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I doubt most goons know it even exists It was a top-level forum until just a month or two ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Arist posted:What is this supposed to mean if not what I said? You equated the “appeal” of comic books with not being serious and gritty. The post there wasn’t saying to get rid of the appeal of comic books, they were saying to downplay the less realistic elements. I’m not sure I agree with that, but I don’t see how it’s a ridiculous argument. I mean, do you think Blade is a serious movie? Arist posted:I didn't argue the specific plot points of BP in that post because this entire thread is about someone going through these movies for the first time, but suffice to say the CIA's goddamn Twitter account does not prove anything about the political leanings of the actual movie, much less decisively. I'm actively embarrassed by the level of reflexive writeoff of one of the most important black movies ever made whenever I see arguments like this. Of course it proves something, considering the CIA and other government agencies are openly known to request changes to films that they’re involved with. I would like to hear why you consider why Black Panther is one of the most important black movies ever made, considering Into the Spider-Verse came out the same year and is considerably better at both representation and filmmaking.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
Arist posted:Cool that the second the "literally funded" claim is challenged you just immediately back down from that specific point. It's not incredibly insulting and disingenuous or anything. They didn’t say literally funded, they said “made in partnership” - and as I’ve already noted, the CIA requests a presence and changes made to films that even so much as depict them. Arist posted:(major, before you cry out about Meteor Man or Steel) I wasn’t going to do this, please don’t put words in my mouth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
Arist posted:This isn't my first rodeo, man. I'm responding to the general subforum consensus and arguments I have heard over and over again at this point as much as I am to any individual post. Because what you actually want to do is use this thread as a springboard to complain about the version of CineD that exists in your head and not actually engage with the discussion that’s happening here. I don’t see the point in complaining about things you hate about CineD in a thread where those things aren’t present. You’re doing disingenuous bad faith poo poo like “don’t EVEN bring up Steel and Meteor Man” because I’m not a person in conversation with you, I’m an Agent of CineD and therefore I clearly must agree with this notion of the subforum you must have. You’re approaching the conversation based entirely on the assumptions you’ve made about me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Arist posted:I have assumed nothing about you, I just don't want to have a conversation with anyone about loving Meteor Man! This is hilariously defensive, my guy! Then don’t bring it up? I’m not the one being weird about it here. “I can’t believe you guys are being so defensive after I started the conversation by calling you all idiots!”
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
Arist posted:Oh, the Hong Kong protests? Those protests that started a full loving year after this movie released? Those protests? You disingenuous gently caress? Why are you being so defensive? Perhaps you should chill out and watch a movie such as the 1993 superhero classic Meteor Man.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Arist posted:Dude, come on. I have like eight people in here tag-teaming me. Last time I tried to discuss this movie in good faith in this subforum was two years ago and I got bought an (honestly charmingly elaborate) redtext accusing me of "threadshitting". The guy you're defending here overreacted to an extremely innocuous comment and then immediately launched into accusing me of acting out of malice and bad faith. This is absurd. Arist posted:Oh, the Hong Kong protests? Those protests that started a full loving year after this movie released? Those protests? You disingenuous gently caress?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
Arist posted:Saying the movie is a CIA psyop based on tweets is not a reasonable take. It's not even actually a reading of the film. Really interesting how you complain about people ignoring your effort posts when multiple people have explained the CIA connections to you now and you are deliberately ignoring those.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
Arist posted:Oh, the Hong Kong protests? Those protests that started a full loving year after this movie released? Those protests? You disingenuous gently caress? Arist posted:You said "ongoing protests" you goddamn liar Arist posted:If you're going to just make a bunch of random poo poo up about me can you at least spell my loving username right Arist posted:Shut the gently caress up. Arist posted:Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's loving raining. Man Arlist I can’t imagine why nobody wants to engage with your arguments.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
Arist posted:Then it shouldn't be hard to provide some concrete evidence. We literally did and you ignored it, and I don’t see how you can claim that a movie where a well-intentioned CIA agent helps the protagonist isn’t pro-CIA.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 15:15
|
|
|
OpenSourceBurger posted:people are told to go to a completely dead subforum that was made for discussing 'lesser' films instead of cluttering up CD with this stuff. Once again: Blockbuster Video is not a “lesser” subforum about “lesser” films. It was made specifically on the request of people who took issue with the tone and atmosphere of CineD. Blockbuster Video was the attempted solution at something many goons said was a problem, and any inactivity in the forum comes from a forums-wide lack of interest in the subforum, not out of any sense of shaming. I don’t condone the snippy posts made in this thread in the first few pages. I tried to help OP out even despite the fact that I greatly dislike the MCU, and even they acknowledged in the OP itself that they may not actually be able to skip any MCU movies. Posts like “watch good movies instead” are actively shutting down discussion, but also so are posts that claim entire arguments are invalid and won’t be entertained and just cursing out other members, and frankly it’s ridiculous it’s been allowed to go on this long.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Arist posted:Dude I'm cursing you out, specifically, because you're very blatantly antagonizing me, lmao Okay, so what’s your excuse for everyone else in the thread you’re doing it to? You had no intention of ever discussing in good faith, you came in here to air your complaints about CineD as a whole in a snarky and disingenuous way, and when people offered counterpoints you responded by claiming everyone else was mad while you went into a sheer rage. And you accuse us of gaslighting?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 18:59
|
|
|
OpenSourceBurger posted:I just think maybe there should be an effort to not alienate people. We shouldn't have to have a secondary subforum because the culture here can be so loving toxic that threads on certain topics get shitposted into oblivion and then turned to totally different topics because people don't respect or approve of the films in discussion. The complaint being lodged at CineD is a level of toxicity, and I’ll again state that I don’t think the shitposts in the first pages of this thread are okay - but if Blockbuster Video was specifically made as an experiment to create a less serious version of CineD, and died nearly immediately, I view that as evidence of how sustainable a non-serious film discussion forum actually is on SA. It’s true that some people aren’t interested in film discussion that involves more in-depth analysis on shot composition and editing or quoting any philosophers, but also some definitely are, and if we already have a solution for that, I’m not sure how much further we need to go. Toxic posters should be reprimanded, but that cuts both ways - both people who enter a thread about a small entertainment project someone is doing with a loved one just to dismiss the idea, and also people who want to shut down any more serious discussion of film and/or only engage in flamewars. CineD regulars have seen a lot of the latter over the years and it conditions them to become the former. It’s not an excuse, just an explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:It was put under CD, killing it before it even started. It was not. It was a top-level forum until it was recently moved to being a subforum of CineD due to inactivity. Sodomy Hussein posted:When you admit out loud that BBV was created because people dislike CD the debate is pretty much over. The tone of this thread from the get-go has been either shitposty or snotty as gently caress so Arist for all their intensity doesn't have to demonstrate anything as far as that goes. So why was Imp Zone created? Why was C-SPAM? A subforum made to discuss a medium in a different tone doesn’t immediately invalidate the original. I feel like the rules and moderation of SA have made it pretty clear that not liking the practices of a thread or forum isn’t an excuse to go in it and start flamewars. The proper response to posts that are snotty and unfair is not to jump in the thread and curse out everyone in it, even those who have attempted to respond to you and others charitably.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Arist posted:You freaking out at the Meteor Man comment was most of the reason this whole thing escalated, so it's not like you bear no responsibility here, especially after your incredibly sad attempts to further rile me up by getting my name wrong. This is exactly what I’m referring to - I called out the way your post was condescending and operating on bad-faith assumptions and your response is to accuse me of being mad and having a meltdown while you make posts like this: Arist posted:Oh, the Hong Kong protests? Those protests that started a full loving year after this movie released? Those protests? You disingenuous gently caress? That really feels like projection to me, and you are getting way more upset about incorrect usernames than anyone ever was about fuckin’ Meteor Man.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
Arist posted:If you really believe me to be on tilt in a thread, intentionally loving with me doesn't actually do anything to improve the level of discourse in the thread, it is entirely an attempt on your part to instigate. That you are now whining about anger that you intentionally sought to magnify and exploit is incredible. Please point out how I am “intentionally” loving with you, because otherwise, I owe you zero apologies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:"C-SPAM vs. D&D" is a can of worms best left to QCS, but we're finding more and more in the course of general QCS discussions that mods should be doing more to control subforums. As opposed in this case to splitting subforums up because modding them would be too unpopular with certain goons, which is exactly what was done in the case of BBV. Blockbuster Video was made specifically on the request of goons who wanted a different kind of film discussion, the stated goal was not to create a subforum to avoid certain users. And if that’s the case, then the claims of BBV being a place you can avoid “the worst of CineD” while also being a “posting ghetto” are at odds. Sodomy Hussein posted:Telling people to either take their snotty and unfair posting lying down or go elsewhere isn't realistic or cool. As I’ve said, I don’t condone the attempts at threadshitting made on the first few pages, but the proper response is not to start flamewars and continue making the thread worse. We are not talking about serious social issues whose solutions are long overdue, we are posting about posting about films on the internet. Civility still reigns. Sodomy Hussein posted:Plenty of discussion about movies is going on in SA outside the hallowed halls of the CD tastemakers, and the more people try and pretend that CD is just too good of a forum for most users the worse this gets. Nobody is saying that. CineD regulars acknowledge the forum’s focus is a different kind of film discussion than some people want, and Blockbuster Video was made as a more casual alternative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:You piled a ton of poo poo on Arist over that Meteor Man thing even though he was obviously just saying it to stop someone from being pedantic in the future which someone absolutely 100% would have been given the level of discourse going on itt. You can’t seriously think people didn’t notice your obvious attempts to troll and irritate him there. Teagone and Lt. Danger answered this one for me while I was gone. I had zero intentions of doing anything like that but Arist insisted on lobbing a jab at CineD as a whole on me because they think CineD is a monolith. If you define "please don't put words in my mouth" as "a ton of poo poo" then we're not even discussing the same ballgame. OpenSourceBurger posted:So can someone explain where the interesting discussion is here? Like I know SMG is the mascot of this place and all but where is the interesting conversation and discussion that's been talked about here? Like, is the joke that he's pretending to be the final boss of a movie subforum of an old message board? Is it a gimmick account? You won't find it in this thread because it started as snide shitposting and people decided to exploit that into a full-on flamewar. Typically I find the best discussion to be happening in the individual threads for each particular movie, as well as the genre megathreads. I read the physical media thread for good A/V tips and GenChat and Who Greenlit are nice for casual chat.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Arist posted:You can believe whatever you want, but this was not actually directed square at you, I was flippantly signaling to the entire thread that I was aware of those movies and didn't think them worth discussion in this context. So you were already posting flippantly and yet got stunned when people didn't think you were here for anything other than poo poo-talking. Arist posted:Summary: you are completely full of poo poo. Case in point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:11 |
|
|
Arist posted:Oh no, I admitted to being glib at one point, clearly this invalidates my entire argument for all of time, revealing that I am here merely to spread anti-CD sentiment through getting dogpiled for talking about a movie I like! I’m just saying, if you think what I said there is “flying off the handle,” I’d like to hear what you consider everything you’ve done in this thread to be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2020 05:31
|
|