Marvel Movie thread

Off Topic Babble. The really important stuff...

Moderator: Andrew

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:51 am

Monker wrote:How ignorant are you? TDK made 1.04 billion world wide. Civil War passed that in its third week. THAT WAS MY POINT. I was not confusing TDK:R. You are not only moving goal posts, you are not even recognizing when a touchdown was scored.


If you weren't too busy patting your best friend on the back (in the mirror, that is), you'd have noticed that I talked about BOTH TDK AND TDKR in my post dated Thu May 26, 2016 2:31 am. Evidently, your arrogance is akin to nearsightedness. :lol:

Monker wrote:So, now it seems Civil War passed BOTH TDK and TDK:R. I didn't know that.


And Civil War will be topped by some other CBM in the future. Next topic.

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:And yeah, I'd expect Avengers: Civil War to make more than a movie starring ONE major superhero. All you're doing is proving to me and everyone that it took 12 heroes — including Spider-Man this time — to beat Batman! Bravo! :lol:


Oh, please, the number of superheroes means nothing. BvS proves that. Being a quality and entertaining film is what matter.


Better phone up Disney and Feige and let them know since they promoted the ever-lovin' fuck out of Civil War as a movie where Robert Downey, Jr. shares the limelight equally with Evans' — like it's Iron Man 4 — and hey, don't show all the heroes interacting or anything. They spoiled a few money shots in all those trailers. Yeah, Spider-Man's reveal had nothing to do with promoting the movie. It was all about "being a quality and entertaining film." Depending on who you talk to, those shitty Transformers movies qualify, too. How about the Leprechaun franchise? :lol:

You're also a hypocrite, as I previously pointed out for your dismissing Diana Prince's role in BvS as "purely promotional," when Spider-Man's is a clear-as-glass "HELLO! I'M IN THE MCU NOW!" Jack-in-the-Box-style pop-up in CW.

Next topic! :lol:

Monker wrote:
Also, thanks for indirectly admitting that in your Monkerverse, quality cinema is synonymous with ticket sales. So that piece o' shit Avatar is obviously the best fucking film ever made! :lol:


Some people think it was. What it was is innovative and pushed technology to a new level. Again, people were entertained by it and wanted to experience that world over and over again.


Doesn't mean it wasn't shit. I also didn't think the CGI was all that. Most overrated movie ever.

Monker wrote:
You're a glommer, and you have always been one.


I'm not the one who compared BvS to X-Men - you guys are. Too bad you can't compare it to a quality film like TDK, or TDK:R.


More proof you missed my point about DoFP and Apocalypse and what they're supposed to represent for a now 16-year-old X-franchise. Why don't you go back, if you're not too lazy daydreaming about Neal Schon's armpit hair, and re-read everything I said about it. Next topic.

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:And I will continue to talk up the Nolan trilogy at will, because you can rest assured Civil War, which is described as "fun," "entertaining," "action-packed," and every associated synonym in Webster's, is still not, and never will be, the critical darling that The Dark Knight is (remember, now I'm talking about the 2008 film, not the 2012 film, so you don't get confused again).


It doesn't matter which film nowadays....since Civil War outsold both of them now.


Yep, you are definitely of the "more/most money made = better/best movie ever" mindset. Or are you just a pseudo-Marvel fanboy? I mean, you don't care about the comics where all these stories originated, so you can't even be a real fanboy. Just a wannabe fanboy. Next topic! :lol:

Monker wrote:And, which one of you guys said just a few weeks ago that critics don't matter? I guess they only matter when they have good things to say.


If that were the case, I wouldn't have shot down with unprecedented ease some of the stupid non-points the "critics" said about BvS. Next.

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:No, they don't need to go to Marvel.


Then don't imply they are Marvel films.


They are movies made with IPs that Marvel sold to fend off bankruptcy woes 20 years ago. That's why remarks like "they should let the rights revert back to Marvel" make no sense. Marvel sold the film rights to them, but they are MARVEL COMICS characters nonetheless, and tough shit. They're Marvel movies (the difference being the word Studios), and that's why you see this at the beginning of each film:

Image

Get over it. Next! :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:07 am

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:He's just talking shit. Notice he waited a bit for CW to get a few extra million in the coffers so he could post his jubilant "Made more than TDK/R!" remarks. :lol:


I waited a few weeks because I was doing other things.


Sure you were. You mean posting in the political thread, right? Yeah, that probably soaks up a lot of free time. Or were you getting your IHEARTSTEVEPERRY silk-screened pillowcase customized? :lol:

Monker wrote:I didn't post it made more than TDK:R....you guys did. Civil War passed TDK in its third week. You two are just ignorant about how much TDK made worldwide. As I said: Civil War sold more than TDK. That is a fact, look it up. And, since you are posting this shit...look up WHEN it passed it , too.


Go back and look. I beat you to your own punchline and posted numbers for both movies because Rises was the one that hit a billion a lot faster than its predecessor — which you didn't even know. I've cited Box Office Mojo a number of times, but I've yet to see you link to it once. You're a selective reader who likes to pretend you're always right and loves to tell people to "look it up."

BOM's stats including domestic/worldwide totals, production budgets, daily/weekend intake, foreign totals, etc. And I've referred to their numbers plenty. You might notice if you'd stop fawning over Ross Valory's moustache in old Journey pix. :lol:

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:The part I bolded in your post is indisputable, especially now. Marvel is a brand, which is why a so-so movie with nice special effects like Ant-Man can also get a piñata (if you haven't seen the movie... :lol: ).

Half-Assed top honors goes to Darcy: The Dark World. :lol:


Keep on making excuses. You two are acting incredibly jealous. Maybe if WB/DC had built up their brand before they made their POS BvS, then the DCEU would not be in such a bad place.


Image

Monker wrote:If Suicide Squad or Wonder Woman do not hit big, IMO the DCEU is at risk of coming to an end. WB is not in the business to make movies that barely make a profit or lose money.


Keep talking to yourself in the mirror, Stuart Smalley. Even this dog is more sure of himself than you.

Image
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Abitaman » Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:04 am

Just got out of X-Men apocalypse, and I liked it better than the Civil War! The X-Men it was more true to the comic this time around in any of their other movies. I also thought it was more realistic than Civil War. And the Wolverine scene was closest to his character and his beserker rage than any other movie so far. It could have trimmed about 20 minutes off the movie and made a stronger movie
Eric, the Abitaman
Abitaman
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4569
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: NO LONGER in West TN, now in East TN's beautiful Smokey Mountains

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:33 am

Abitaman wrote:Just got out of X-Men apocalypse, and I liked it better than the Civil War! The X-Men it was more true to the comic this time around in any of their other movies. I also thought it was more realistic than Civil War. And the Wolverine scene was closest to his character and his beserker rage than any other movie so far. It could have trimmed about 20 minutes off the movie and made a stronger movie


Sounds cool, man, I'll be checking it out sometime this week. I was worried about berserker Wolvie, but I trust your feedback.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:47 am

verslibre wrote:
Abitaman wrote:Just got out of X-Men apocalypse, and I liked it better than the Civil War! The X-Men it was more true to the comic this time around in any of their other movies. I also thought it was more realistic than Civil War. And the Wolverine scene was closest to his character and his beserker rage than any other movie so far. It could have trimmed about 20 minutes off the movie and made a stronger movie


Sounds cool, man, I'll be checking it out sometime this week. I was worried about berserker Wolvie, but I trust your feedback.

I don't know about berserker Wolverine but the berserker burger at Red Robin is awesome.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7675
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:06 am

Red Robin's burgers are good!!
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:21 pm

verslibre wrote:Why don't you go back, if you're not too lazy daydreaming about Neal Schon's armpit hair, and re-read everything I said about it. Next topic.


Lmao. Random.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12394
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:30 pm

verslibre wrote:Shit, Apocalypse made $25 million less than DoFP in its first three days. Yikes!


Wonder what Fox will do? Maybe add Deadpool to the next one? More unnecessary Hugh Jackman cameos? Reboot completely?

I was dragged to see Neighbors 2. Very weak. It looked like shit. It mostly was shit.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12394
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:47 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Wonder what Fox will do? Maybe add Deadpool to the next one? More unnecessary Hugh Jackman cameos? Reboot completely?


Doubt it. It's still making some money. 80 million after four days, though. For recent CBMs, only Ant-Man was lower.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:I was dragged to see Neighbors 2. Very weak. It looked like shit. It mostly was shit.


At least it has a bunch of hot chicks in it. That's more than you can say for Alice. :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Fri Jun 03, 2016 5:08 am

"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sat Jun 04, 2016 12:46 pm

Saw Civil War. Pretty much Avengers 2 with better shot action. The central conflict underpinning the movie rang false to me. I never once believed that a cavalier tech cowboy like Tony would be in favor of the UN Accords. Over the span of these movies, Tony has enriched himself in industry but has remained very much an outsider to establishment and flouted authority. I just didn't buy that he was willing to sign away his rights. Captain America's personal loyalty to Bucky even in the face of Bucky's mounting death toll just seemed selfish. So you have two main characters with character motivations that just struck me as off. Finding out that the villain was just some Sokovian holding a grudge was also a let down. Any references to Sokovia or Avengers 2 should probably be avoided. Black Panther stuff was handled better than the Justice League cameos in Batman vs. Superman. The Spiderman scenes were pretty clunky and felt like an after-thought. Half way through I was ready to go sit in the lobby and just play with my phone. The airport fight sequence was well done, but who gives a fuck? So many second-stringers like Vision and Hawkeye and Ant Man. I just couldn't be bothered to care. Better than Batman vs Superman but not by much.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12394
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun Jun 05, 2016 1:00 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Saw Civil War. Pretty much Avengers 2 with better shot action. The central conflict underpinning the movie rang false to me. I never once believed that a cavalier tech cowboy like Tony would be in favor of the UN Accords. Over the span of these movies, Tony has enriched himself in industry but has remained very much an outsider to establishment and flouted authority. I just didn't buy that he was willing to sign away his rights.


Yeah, it's bullshit. Suddenly the juvenile delinquent is the lawman on the block, just because it's the thing to do. That's what happens when you force a change to a sequel that was going in a different direction. Plus, Civil War was a response to decades of superhero activity and the resulting destruction and loss of life (a guy called Nitro blew himself up, and that was the last straw). Iron Man talks Spider-Man into unmasking. Cap opposes Iron Man because Stark (who becomes a real douche, and was never anything like how Downey plays him) because he sees him as a general threat to liberty whose influence is growing and affecting other heroes. You really needed everyone in place to pull it off.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Captain America's personal loyalty to Bucky even in the face of Bucky's mounting death toll just seemed selfish. So you have two main characters with character motivations that just struck me as off. Finding out that the villain was just some Sokovian holding a grudge was also a let down. Any references to Sokovia or Avengers 2 should probably be avoided.


Yep, that was some basic Villain 101 shit. I kept waiting for him to go full Baron Zemo, but he just turned out to be a regular guy who played the world's resident superteam like a fiddle. Not very flattering in that context.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Black Panther stuff was handled better than the Justice League cameos in Batman vs. Superman.


LOL. Apples and kiwis. Black Panther has a large part in CW. Even Ant-Man gets serious screen time. You can't compare an actual role with drone-cam/security-cam footage.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The Spiderman scenes were pretty clunky and felt like an after-thought.


His intro feels clunky because it is. They weren't sure they were going to get him. Then Sony pulled an about-face. It makes Stark look like an even bigger prick, too. In a scene filmed not long before the movie's released, a woman tells Stark about her dead son. Later, Stark has a brilliant idea: bring a kid to a fight. :roll:

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Half way through I was ready to go sit in the lobby and just play with my phone. The airport fight sequence was well done, but who gives a fuck? So many second-stringers like Vision and Hawkeye and Ant Man.


Vision had some good moves. Like I said, Team Iron Man had way too much power. Vision alone can seriously fuck things up, but they wrote it so that only War Machine got fucked up, because somehow Falcon developed Spider-Sense and dodged an energy blast. :lol:

The_Noble_Cause wrote:I just couldn't be bothered to care. Better than Batman vs Superman but not by much.


Better wait to see the 182-minute Ultimate Edition before you decide that. :wink:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Jun 05, 2016 8:38 pm

verslibre wrote:Yeah, it's bullshit. Suddenly the juvenile delinquent is the lawman on the block, just because it's the thing to do. That's what happens when you force a change to a sequel that was going in a different direction. Plus, Civil War was a response to decades of superhero activity and the resulting destruction and loss of life (a guy called Nitro blew himself up, and that was the last straw). Iron Man talks Spider-Man into unmasking. Cap opposes Iron Man because Stark (who becomes a real douche, and was never anything like how Downey plays him) because he sees him as a general threat to liberty whose influence is growing and affecting other heroes. You really needed everyone in place to pull it off.


Glad I am not alone in thinking Civil War was not all that. Without getting into spoilers, the reveal at the end that it Zemo who blew up the United Nations is like something straight out of Scooby Doo. And if Zemo's ultimate goal was to destroy The Avengers, why not simply disguise himself as Stark, Rogers, or Fury. Why Bucky? That's a long convoluted road just to pit Rogers and Stark against one another.


verslibre wrote: In a scene filmed not long before the movie's released, a woman tells Stark about her dead son. Later, Stark has a brilliant idea: bring a kid to a fight. :roll:


That's a really good point.

verslibre wrote:Better wait to see the 182-minute Ultimate Edition before you decide that. :wink:


Wouldn't be surprised if it was better than Civil War.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
MP3
 
Posts: 12394
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:18 am

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:How ignorant are you? TDK made 1.04 billion world wide. Civil War passed that in its third week. THAT WAS MY POINT. I was not confusing TDK:R. You are not only moving goal posts, you are not even recognizing when a touchdown was scored.


If you weren't too busy patting your best friend on the back (in the mirror, that is), you'd have noticed that I talked about BOTH TDK AND TDKR in my post dated Thu May 26, 2016 2:31 am. Evidently, your arrogance is akin to nearsightedness. :lol:


Then don't say I was confusing the two movies. I wasn't.

Monker wrote:So, now it seems Civil War passed BOTH TDK and TDK:R. I didn't know that.


And Civil War will be topped by some other CBM in the future. Next topic.


Yep...probably by Infinity War Part 1.

Oh, please, the number of superheroes means nothing. BvS proves that. Being a quality and entertaining film is what matter.


Better phone up Disney and Feige and let them know since they promoted the ever-lovin' fuck out of Civil War as a movie where Robert Downey, Jr. shares the limelight equally with Evans' — like it's Iron Man 4 — and hey, don't show all the heroes interacting or anything. They spoiled a few money shots in all those trailers. Yeah, Spider-Man's reveal had nothing to do with promoting the movie. It was all about "being a quality and entertaining film." Depending on who you talk to, those shitty Transformers movies qualify, too. How about the Leprechaun franchise? :lol:


If it matters, then X-Men:Apocolypse should have done at least as well as Civil War:
Professer X.
Mystique
Havoc
Cyclops
Wolverine
Beast
Jean Grey/Pheonix
Quicksilver
Nightcrawler
Magneto
Angel
Storm
Psylocke

And, it was essentially another VS movie.

You're also a hypocrite, as I previously pointed out for your dismissing Diana Prince's role in BvS as "purely promotional," when Spider-Man's is a clear-as-glass "HELLO! I'M IN THE MCU NOW!" Jack-in-the-Box-style pop-up in CW.


That is a complete and utter LIE.

I said from the beginning that Spiderman was in the movie for same reason Wonder Woman was in BvS, to set up his solo movie.

Monker wrote:Doesn't mean it wasn't shit. I also didn't think the CGI was all that. Most overrated movie ever.


Well, it doesn't matter what you alone think. For many the quality of the movie did not matter as much as the updated 3d affects and immersion in the world. THAT is why people saw it over and over again.

BTW, IMO, it's a tie between that and Independence Day for being the most overrated SciFi movie ever. But, at least I can recognize and admit why they were both so popular.

You're a glommer, and you have always been one.


I'm not the one who compared BvS to X-Men - you guys are. Too bad you can't compare it to a quality film like TDK, or TDK:R.


More proof you missed my point about DoFP and Apocalypse and what they're supposed to represent for a now 16-year-old X-franchise. Why don't you go back, if you're not too lazy daydreaming about Neal Schon's armpit hair, and re-read everything I said about it. Next topic.


I'm not going to reread anything. You compared BvS to what is definitely now a third rate franchise.

Monker wrote:Yep, you are definitely of the "more/most money made = better/best movie ever" mindset. Or are you just a pseudo-Marvel fanboy? I mean, you don't care about the comics where all these stories originated, so you can't even be a real fanboy. Just a wannabe fanboy. Next topic! :lol:


What I am saying about the comics is they are in a different universe than the movies. The movies are a different medium and should not rely on the comics to generate all of the story. When that happens you end up with crappy movies like BvS.

They are movies made with IPs that Marvel sold to fend off bankruptcy woes 20 years ago. That's why remarks like "they should let the rights revert back to Marvel" make no sense. Marvel sold the film rights to them, but they are MARVEL COMICS characters nonetheless, and tough shit. They're Marvel movies (the difference being the word Studios), and that's why you see this at the beginning of each film:


My point is they are not set in the MCU and are not Marvel studio films. The way you talk about X-Men implies that they are. You can not compare X-Men to DCEU and imply it relates in any way to comparing DC to the MCU.

If you want to compare the comics, go ahead....but that is NOT the same thing.
Last edited by Monker on Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:16 am

Yes, Apocalypse should have earned much more by this point. Its drop this last weekend certifies that (it got its ass kicked by the Ninja Turtles). Fox has to be disappointed. XMA's 10-day domestic total trails the previous film's by 45.5 million. Good thing Singer said he's stepping away. I bet they softly blew in his ear and told him to make himself scarce. :lol:

Btw, you need to fix your quotes. I don't feel like sorting out what I wrote and what you wrote, so we'll just agree to disagree on everything else. :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:11 am

verslibre wrote:Yes, Apocalypse should have earned much more by this point. Its drop this last weekend certifies that (it got its ass kicked by the Ninja Turtles). Fox has to be disappointed. XMA's 10-day domestic total trails the previous film's by 45.5 million. Good thing Singer said he's stepping away. I bet they softly blew in his ear and told him to make himself scarce. :lol:

Btw, you need to fix your quotes. I don't feel like sorting out what I wrote and what you wrote, so we'll just agree to disagree on everything else. :lol:


IMO, it's a sign that there were too many comic book superhero movies out this late spring/summer and there was a bit of burnout by the time x-Men came out.

As far as I'm concerned, Singer can do another one. It was a good film all the way around.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Tue Jun 07, 2016 8:40 am

Monker wrote:What I am saying about the comics is they are in a different universe than the movies. The movies are a different medium and should not rely on the comics to generate all of the story.


The movies are self-contained. Their stories don't "share" space with digital or print comics, but that's for Captain Obvious to reflect upon. The movies ARE BASED on the comics stories, with discretionary tweaks added. You can end up with something great (or something so different, people don't realize it's great at first, as with BvS), or you can have something akin to a super-sized fast food meal, like Civil War. It tastes great going down, but 4-5 hours later you've moved on. Love 'em or hate 'em, MoS and BvS have generated the opposite result. People can't stop talking about them.

Which brings us to a separate, but connected, facet of the discussion: IF all people get that the films and comics are separate, nobody, and I mean nobody (say it like Callahan), should be bitching about DCEU-Superman. He's a different take on the character sourced from the last three decades of general stories. The same thing happened with Tim Burton's Batman. It didn't follow the Adam West model (though you could argue Nicholson's Joker was an update or Romero's), and was massively successful. Singer's Superman was a redo of Donner's and it wasn't DOA, but it failed to resonate. Schumacher's Batman & Robin is a redo of BatWest, and it put the franchise on life support.

So really, people need to make up their minds.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:28 am

Which brings us to a separate, but connected, facet of the discussion: IF all people get that the films and comics are separate, nobody, and I mean nobody (say it like Callahan), should be bitching about DCEU-Superman. He's a different take on the character sourced from the last three decades of general stories.


Absofrickenlutley. That's hitting a nail on the head. Sourced material is all over the DCEU Superman. In Man of Steel, Snyder really brought us a Superman that referenced more of what most Elseworld Superman stories were doing with the character, which was bringing a real world and grounded setting to a relatable Superman character; stories like Superman: Earth One and the relaunch of the New52 of Superman come to mind as far as brashness in attitude and reaction was concerned.

In Batman V Superman, Snyder actually wrote Supes more in line of the 1990's character and what John Byrne/Dan Jurgens brought to the table during that time. Not only did Snyder create a Death of Superman scenario, but Snyder made it clear that Kal was Clark Kent at heart with Superman being the mask; something that was evident in personality during the 90's era of Superman. Clark Kent was the focal point of who Supes was. Man of Steel begun that Clark Kent arc and BvS ended it with Clark's sacrifice. Snyder made this clear in visual's by showing Clark in the casket. He's basically saying that Kal's sacrifice was the death of Clark Kent as Kal saw it and the birth of Superman all in one moment.

So really, people need to make up their minds.


Hah! Doubtful.

Image

:wink:
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:05 pm

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:What I am saying about the comics is they are in a different universe than the movies. The movies are a different medium and should not rely on the comics to generate all of the story.


The movies are self-contained. Their stories don't "share" space with digital or print comics, but that's for Captain Obvious to reflect upon. The movies ARE BASED on the comics stories, with discretionary tweaks added. You can end up with something great (or something so different, people don't realize it's great at first, as with BvS), or you can have something akin to a super-sized fast food meal, like Civil War. It tastes great going down, but 4-5 hours later you've moved on. Love 'em or hate 'em, MoS and BvS have generated the opposite result. People can't stop talking about them.


Please. That's a good bit of fiction there.

A movie does not have to be 'based' on the comics. As I said, the "Lord of the Rings" movies deviate from the books in huge ways: removing favorite characters (Tom Bombadil), adding story that was not very prevalent (Aragorn/Arwen's love story), making an entire movie out of Helm's Deep when it was only a part of the book. But, LotR is considered a huge triumph written in the "spirit" of the novels.

You can imagine Civil War being a fast food movie. But, it's not. It is up there with the first Avengers movie and will be remembered as one of the best CBM's of all time. After "Suicide Squad" and "Wonder Woman" come out and have their mediocre success, and "Justice League" is coming up, BvS will be a distant nightmare and WB will be hoping people have forgotten how horrible it was.

Which brings us to a separate, but connected, facet of the discussion: IF all people get that the films and comics are separate, nobody, and I mean nobody (say it like Callahan), should be bitching about DCEU-Superman. He's a different take on the character sourced from the last three decades of general stories.


I'm not bitching about that. I don't care that he is completely different. But, give the audience time to adjust to that. You two said that people would buy into it because, hey, it's Superman, it's Batman, it's VS. They did buy a round of tickets and were horrified at what they saw, trashed the film, trashed the director, trashed WB/DC for making a horrible movie. Part of the reason is because Superman is supposedly changed...but the audience had not fully understood, embraced, and invested into that new character. So, the movie understandably gets critiqued for it. Snyder gets accused of hating the character. WB/DC in general gets accused of preferring Batman over Superman.

And, it's crap to say that people do not understand how great it is, but will with time. Nobody wants to spend $10 or more for a three hour movie that they leave feeling miffed...but will completely understand and accept it five years later.

The same thing happened with Tim Burton's Batman. It didn't follow the Adam West model (though you could argue Nicholson's Joker was an update or Romero's), and was massively successful. Singer's Superman was a redo of Donner's and it wasn't DOA, but it failed to resonate. Schumacher's Batman & Robin is a redo of BatWest, and it put the franchise on life support.


And, for all of that talk above...none of those films were as bad as BvS.

So really, people need to make up their minds.


Don't blame the audience for not accepting crap. Snyder needs to learn how to tell a good story in film or WB should fire him. That is the problem here, not a finicky audience.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:14 pm

YoungJRNYfan wrote:
Which brings us to a separate, but connected, facet of the discussion: IF all people get that the films and comics are separate, nobody, and I mean nobody (say it like Callahan), should be bitching about DCEU-Superman. He's a different take on the character sourced from the last three decades of general stories.


Absofrickenlutley. That's hitting a nail on the head. Sourced material is all over the DCEU Superman. In Man of Steel, Snyder really brought us a Superman that referenced more of what most Elseworld Superman stories were doing with the character, which was bringing a real world and grounded setting to a relatable Superman character; stories like Superman: Earth One and the relaunch of the New52 of Superman come to mind as far as brashness in attitude and reaction was concerned.

In Batman V Superman, Snyder actually wrote Supes more in line of the 1990's character and what John Byrne/Dan Jurgens brought to the table during that time. Not only did Snyder create a Death of Superman scenario, but Snyder made it clear that Kal was Clark Kent at heart with Superman being the mask; something that was evident in personality during the 90's era of Superman. Clark Kent was the focal point of who Supes was. Man of Steel begun that Clark Kent arc and BvS ended it with Clark's sacrifice. Snyder made this clear in visual's by showing Clark in the casket. He's basically saying that Kal's sacrifice was the death of Clark Kent as Kal saw it and the birth of Superman all in one moment.


Yeah, he made it so clear that if you asked the audience about Superman's death in the movie, only the comic book nerds who know the story from the comics would be able to repeat what you just did. Snyder made NOTHING clear.

When people make such graphics, they would have a lot more impact if they used proper grammar. It kinda kills the point Where is "Much Action" and why is Superman going there? But, since it's DC, it is kinda expected, I suppose.

Image

:wink:[/quote]
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:31 pm

I'll replace that meme. It's not the one that I usually use when it comes to that point made, but I was in a hurry and couldn't find it.

For the record, it kind of defeats the purpose of debating with someone who has been here for 14 years and still doesn't know how to quote somebody properly.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:05 am

Monker wrote:When people make such graphics, they would have a lot more impact if they used proper grammar. It kinda kills the point Where is "Much Action" and why is Superman going there? But, since it's DC, it is kinda expected, I suppose.


It's just a meme, and you obviously got the point.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Jun 08, 2016 1:58 am

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:What I am saying about the comics is they are in a different universe than the movies. The movies are a different medium and should not rely on the comics to generate all of the story.


The movies are self-contained. Their stories don't "share" space with digital or print comics, but that's for Captain Obvious to reflect upon. The movies ARE BASED on the comics stories, with discretionary tweaks added. You can end up with something great (or something so different, people don't realize it's great at first, as with BvS), or you can have something akin to a super-sized fast food meal, like Civil War. It tastes great going down, but 4-5 hours later you've moved on. Love 'em or hate 'em, MoS and BvS have generated the opposite result. People can't stop talking about them.


Please. That's a good bit of fiction there.

A movie does not have to be 'based' on the comics. As I said, the "Lord of the Rings" movies deviate from the books in huge ways: removing favorite characters (Tom Bombadil), adding story that was not very prevalent (Aragorn/Arwen's love story), making an entire movie out of Helm's Deep when it was only a part of the book. But, LotR is considered a huge triumph written in the "spirit" of the novels.


:lol: Oh, the density. Do you know what it means when you see text that reads "Based on the book(s)/novel(s)" or "Based on characters created by" or "Based on a true story/true events," etc.? It means you won't get an uber-faithful or uber-literal adaptation/transference of the source material, but [more than] enough of it is there and represented within the movie you're watching. Of course CBMs are BASED ON the comics, like Peter Jackson's films are BASED ON Tolkien's novels. To argue otherwise is wholesale trolling.

Is this movie based on a book?

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was based on the first book of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, written by the English academic and author J.R.R. Tolkien [1892-1973]. The other two books in the series (both movie and novel) are: (2) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and (3) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. The novels were adapted for the movie by New Zealand screenwriter Philippa Boyens, director Peter Jackson, and Jackson's wife, screenwriter Fran Walsh.


Look! A LINK. That you can click. :lol: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/faq?ref_=tt_ql_op_2#.2.1.4

Is this movie based on a book?

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is based on the first six chapters of the novel The Hobbit, or There and Back Again (1937) by British author J.R.R. Tolkien [1892-1973]. Chapter seven through 13 were adapted in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) and the remaining chapters 14 through 19 were dealt with in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014).


———> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/faq?ref_=tt_ql_op_2#.2.1.4

Monker wrote:You can imagine Civil War being a fast food movie. But, it's not. It is up there with the first Avengers movie and will be remembered as one of the best CBM's of all time. After "Suicide Squad" and "Wonder Woman" come out and have their mediocre success, and "Justice League" is coming up, BvS will be a distant nightmare and WB will be hoping people have forgotten how horrible it was.


No, definitely not biased.

Monker wrote:I'm not bitching about that. I don't care that he is completely different. But, give the audience time to adjust to that. You two said that people would buy into it because, hey, it's Superman, it's Batman, it's VS. They did buy a round of tickets and were horrified at what they saw, trashed the film, trashed the director, trashed WB/DC for making a horrible movie. Part of the reason is because Superman is supposedly changed...but the audience had not fully understood, embraced, and invested into that new character. So, the movie understandably gets critiqued for it. Snyder gets accused of hating the character. WB/DC in general gets accused of preferring Batman over Superman.


As I've said more than once, there is no way a film that's universally despised would gross 872 million worldwide. No way. Look at the new Alice movie. Its 10-day gross is literally a quarter what the first one's was? Why? Because while the first one was popular, this movie isn't. Some people do like it, but it's another bomb. Its worldwide gross is equal to its production budget, so they won't even recover the marketing budget. And you go ahead and poo-poo the BvS-X-Men comparison, but you're going to have to acknowledge at some point that the last two X-films are both tentpoles just like BvS, and XMA's performance is disappointing (and it's got nothing to do with "CBM fatigue").

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:The same thing happened with Tim Burton's Batman. It didn't follow the Adam West model (though you could argue Nicholson's Joker was an update or Romero's), and was massively successful. Singer's Superman was a redo of Donner's and it wasn't DOA, but it failed to resonate. Schumacher's Batman & Robin is a redo of BatWest, and it put the franchise on life support.


And, for all of that talk above...none of those films were as bad as BvS.


Hahahaha, you're a real piece of work. Batman & Robin is so bad, it's its own punchline. You're obviously clueless and you've obviously not seen BvS if you're going to sit there and type "Buttman & Rubbin is better!" :lol:

Monker wrote:Don't blame the audience for not accepting crap. Snyder needs to learn how to tell a good story in film or WB should fire him. That is the problem here, not a finicky audience.


[I'm going to delete my remark about Whedon for now. It may pop up later. :wink: ]

There's more than one story as to why/how the theatrical cut of BvS is the one audiences got. But the Ultimate Cut (which I expect will sell pretty well) emphasizes Clark Kent's role as Daily Planet reporter, and restores footage that shows how Superman got framed for bloodshed in Africa. And those are the two things, besides EisenLex, people complained of the most.
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:10 am

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:When people make such graphics, they would have a lot more impact if they used proper grammar. It kinda kills the point Where is "Much Action" and why is Superman going there? But, since it's DC, it is kinda expected, I suppose.


It's just a meme, and you obviously got the point.


What point? That DC fans embrace horrible writing skills? BvS proved that to me already.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:46 am

I said: wrote:A movie does not have to be 'based' on the comics.


you rambled on and on about: wrote: :lol: Oh, the density. Do you know what it means when you see text that reads "Based on the book(s)/novel(s)" or "Based on characters created by" or "Based on a true story/true events," etc.? It means you won't get an uber-faithful or uber-literal adaptation/transference of the source material, but [more than] enough of it is there and represented within the movie you're watching. Of course CBMs are BASED ON the comics, like Peter Jackson's films are BASED ON Tolkien's novels. To argue otherwise is wholesale trolling.


You do understand simple English and the phrase "does not have to be", correct?


Look! A LINK.

Image

Monker wrote:You can imagine Civil War being a fast food movie. But, it's not. It is up there with the first Avengers movie and will be remembered as one of the best CBM's of all time. After "Suicide Squad" and "Wonder Woman" come out and have their mediocre success, and "Justice League" is coming up, BvS will be a distant nightmare and WB will be hoping people have forgotten how horrible it was.


No, definitely not biased.


Then YOU make a prediction. How much will SS gross? I said 500million worldwide gross...and I'll stick to that. For WW, I'll say 700million.

Make YOUR "unbiased" prediction.

Monker wrote:I'm not bitching about that. I don't care that he is completely different. But, give the audience time to adjust to that. You two said that people would buy into it because, hey, it's Superman, it's Batman, it's VS. They did buy a round of tickets and were horrified at what they saw, trashed the film, trashed the director, trashed WB/DC for making a horrible movie. Part of the reason is because Superman is supposedly changed...but the audience had not fully understood, embraced, and invested into that new character. So, the movie understandably gets critiqued for it. Snyder gets accused of hating the character. WB/DC in general gets accused of preferring Batman over Superman.


As I've said more than once, there is no way a film that's universally despised would gross 872 million worldwide. No way.


Except for the FACT that both you and YJF said BvS would be a huge film because of the two heroes and the thought of them battling each other. That all of the stuff I was talking about just wouldn't matter...because Batman, Superman, VS...like, wow and stuff like that. That was an opinion I never disagreed with...but, NOW, after it FAILED to become a hit the size of Avengers and caught DC up to Marvel, you backtrack and say it hit that lukewarm number because people liked the movie. Those two opinions contradict each other. So, which one is fits in with reality and which is complete bullshit and wishful thinking? You decide, they are your hypocritical statements.

Look at the new Alice movie. Its 10-day gross is literally a quarter what the first one's was? Why?


Because people spent all of their money on BvS and then watching Civil War multiple times to get over their disappointment.

There were too many blockbuster films this summer. Angry Birds, Zootopia, and Pets will be coming up. And, BvS and Civil War also took away from it. People don't have unlimited cash to spend on these movies.

And you go ahead and poo-poo the BvS-X-Men comparison, but you're going to have to acknowledge at some point that the last two X-films are both tentpoles just like BvS, and XMA's performance is disappointing (and it's got nothing to do with "CBM fatigue").


I don't have to do anything. XM-A was a good movie. Of course it's performance was disappointing. But, it was not because of the quality of the film. And, yes, I do believe that the CBM's are at a saturation point and good movies like XM-A are going to fail due to scheduling alone.

Not sure why Dr. Strange was scheduled in November instead of late summer....but it was a smart move. If it is anywhere near as good as the trailers look, it will pay off big time. It could be another billion dollar movie.

Monker wrote:Hahahaha, you're a real piece of work. Batman & Robin is so bad, it's its own punchline. You're obviously clueless and you've obviously not seen BvS if you're going to sit there and type "Buttman & Rubbin is better!" :lol:


Yes, B&R is better than BvS. At least B&R is a coherent film that makes sense. BvS is horrible all around. BvS is so horrible that it is below B&R as far as a quality film goes.

There's more than one story as to why/how the theatrical cut of BvS is the one audiences got. But the Ultimate Cut (which I expect will sell pretty well) emphasizes Clark Kent's role as Daily Planet reporter, and restores footage that shows how Superman got framed for bloodshed in Africa. And those are the two things, besides EisenLex, people complained of the most.


Oh, so now it's DC/WB's fault because they didn't release a 3 1/2 film. Are you that invested in BvS's success that you think a film twice as long as some others is somehow going to be a bigger hit? Maybe it's somehow admirable that you will do anything to deny that BvS simply fails as a film...but after a while it just seems really sad.

And, again, if you are so confident that the extended cut of BvS will sell so well...make a prediction of how many copies it will sell.

I don't think you will do it. I think you are too worried of how wrong you will be on both the BvS extended cut and the worldwide gross of Suicde Squad and WW.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:59 am

Monker wrote:You do understand simple English and the phrase "does not have to be", correct?


Image

Your entire response was, tonally speaking, a lame attempt at some kind of refutation or correction of my previous remarks. Maybe you need to take your fingers off both the rewind and forward buttons. They're not meant to be operated simultaneously. :lol:

Monker wrote:Then YOU make a prediction. How much will SS gross? I said 500million worldwide gross...and I'll stick to that. For WW, I'll say 700million.

Make YOUR "unbiased" prediction.


I think the bottom line for Wonder Woman will be 625 million worldwide. Its budget is comparable to The Dark Knight's, and IMO, 625M is a respectable gross (before promotional tie-ins and everything else). As a period piece, it won't be weighed down with gobs of CGI. The enduring popularity of the character is a bonus. I know people who aren't on the BvS train who are looking forward to this movie.

Suicide Squad will be a movie that walks to around 700-750M. It won't bank everything its first two weekends.

Monker wrote:Except for the FACT that both you and YJF said BvS would be a huge film because of the two heroes and the thought of them battling each other. That all of the stuff I was talking about just wouldn't matter...because Batman, Superman, VS...like, wow and stuff like that. That was an opinion I never disagreed with...but, NOW, after it FAILED to become a hit the size of Avengers and caught DC up to Marvel, you backtrack and say it hit that lukewarm number because people liked the movie. Those two opinions contradict each other. So, which one is fits in with reality and which is complete bullshit and wishful thinking? You decide, they are your hypocritical statements.


If you want to imply BvS has had no kind of impact, I beg to differ. It's (still) being talked about, everywhere. The Ultimate Edition comes out on digital this month, and Blu-ray and 4D next month, upon which the proverbial floodgates will open again. Chatter for Civil War has dropped dramatically because everyone saw it for all the characters and little else. People moved on to arguing for/against X-M:A.

Monker wrote:There were too many blockbuster films this summer. Angry Birds, Zootopia, and Pets will be coming up. And, BvS and Civil War also took away from it. People don't have unlimited cash to spend on these movies.


That's funny. I recall Man of Steel being affected thusly, but everyone says it underperformed. :wink:

Monker wrote:I don't have to do anything. XM-A was a good movie. Of course it's performance was disappointing. But, it was not because of the quality of the film. And, yes, I do believe that the CBM's are at a saturation point and good movies like XM-A are going to fail due to scheduling alone.


CBMs are not at a saturation point. From your PoV, Deadpool and Civil War are proof with their respective grosses, no? So if X-M:A's disappointing box office has nothing to do with quality or the alleged CBM burnout, then what is it? Wait, do you mean you actually watched the movie? Or are you vouching for another spoiler-rich YouTube review?

Monker wrote:Not sure why Dr. Strange was scheduled in November instead of late summer....but it was a smart move. If it is anywhere near as good as the trailers look, it will pay off big time. It could be another billion dollar movie.


Billion? I dunno about that. Better wait for the next trailer before you make that leap. Though I'm fully aware of Benny's popularity, especially in Europe.

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:Hahahaha, you're a real piece of work. Batman & Robin is so bad, it's its own punchline. You're obviously clueless and you've obviously not seen BvS if you're going to sit there and type "Buttman & Rubbin is better!" :lol:


Yes, B&R is better than BvS. At least B&R is a coherent film that makes sense. BvS is horrible all around. BvS is so horrible that it is below B&R as far as a quality film goes.


Still don't think you actually saw it. Are you going to watch the Ultimate cut, at least?

Monker wrote:And, again, if you are so confident that the extended cut of BvS will sell so well...make a prediction of how many copies it will sell.


100M guaranteed between physical/digital. Review the sales of Blu-ray/DVD for The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel over at The-Numbers.com. The trend will continue. Even Batman Begins has moved a healthy number of discs: http://the-numbers.com/movie/Batman-Begins#tab=video-sales

Monker wrote:I don't think you will do it. I think you are too worried of how wrong you will be on both the BvS extended cut and the worldwide gross of Suicde Squad and WW.


Image
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Thu Jun 30, 2016 2:26 am

Looks cheap. Well, that's what postproduction is for, right?

Image
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Thu Jun 30, 2016 1:37 pm

verslibre wrote:Looks cheap. Well, that's what postproduction is for, right?

Image


Or, it's an early suit before Uncle Stark gives him another upgrade.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9396
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:05 am

HISHE: How Captain America: Civil War Should Have Ended

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvLw021rVN0
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:20 am

This thread's been dead for exactly one month because a couple guys are too busy focusing their white-hot hatred on the DCEU. :lol:
"Heer's ta swimmen wid bowlegged wimmen!"
User avatar
verslibre
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 4999
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Death By Stereo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests