Marvel Movie thread

Off Topic Babble. The really important stuff...

Moderator: Andrew

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:15 pm

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Green Lantern>>>>>>>>>>>> Captain America: The First Avenger (TNC would agree; he loved Green Lantern.)
Lol. Don't make me pull up the numbers. CA:TFA launched yet another successful franchise, while GL is yet another abortion of one of DC's plans to try to do the same. Scoreboard! lol
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 YoungJRNYfan » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:22 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Green Lantern>>>>>>>>>>>> Captain America: The First Avenger (TNC would agree; he loved Green Lantern.)
Lol. Don't make me pull up the numbers. CA:TFA launched yet another successful franchise, while GL is yet another abortion of one of DC's plans to try to do the same. Scoreboard! lol


The First Avenger didn't launch sheite. Iron Man and the box office draw of RDJR is to thank. TFA is lucky it rode the coattails of Iron Man and Marvel's post credit scenes. That movie alone would have tanked faster than a speeding bullet if the Avenger Assemble wasn't in full filler-movement until Avengers.

All Green Lantern did was hit the reset button for WB to get back to the drawing board to find their identity and is the MAIN reason why a darker tone fits more of the DC superhero's rather than the Marvel hero's.

Like I said, GL was a reset... just like what the Hulk franchise went through with 2 reboots. I love the Hulk. One of the Marvel character's I care for about for sure. Too bad they still have no fucking clue what to do with him.
Last edited by YoungJRNYfan on Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:23 pm

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Marvel won't even market Black Widow because they are afraid the 9 year olds in the crowd will harden their ween's and we ALL know we can't have that with Marvel.


:lol: :lol: :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 YoungJRNYfan » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:26 pm

verslibre wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Marvel won't even market Black Widow because they are afraid the 9 year olds in the crowd will harden their ween's and we ALL know we can't have that with Marvel.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


Here’s Why Black Widow Isn’t On Most Avengers Merchandise
http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2015/04/he ... rchandise/

The short answer, according to The Mary Sue, is that Disney thinks boys fear anyone with a vagina on their T-shirts. A former Marvel employee who spoke anonymously has explained what’s going on:


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

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed Apr 22, 2015 12:56 pm

#givehawkeyeachance :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 jestor92 » Fri Apr 24, 2015 2:14 am

First of all I'm not a comic book reader.

Out of the Marvel movies the only movies I really thought were great were Iron Man, The Avengers, Captain America The Winter Soldier, and I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was a very good movie. The first Captain America was probably the next good movie while the Thor movies, the remaining two Iron Man movies, and the Hulk movies I thought were average at best.

As for DC, I liked Man of Steel. I don't like what I've seen out of the Superman vs Batman preview. I thought Green Lantern was a movie that was on par with the Thor and Iron Man 2 and 3 movies. A decent popcorn movie.
User avatar
jestor92
8 Track
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:49 am

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:51 pm

jestor92 wrote:First of all I'm not a comic book reader.

Out of the Marvel movies the only movies I really thought were great were Iron Man, The Avengers, Captain America The Winter Soldier, and I thought Guardians of the Galaxy was a very good movie. The first Captain America was probably the next good movie while the Thor movies, the remaining two Iron Man movies, and the Hulk movies I thought were average at best.

As for DC, I liked Man of Steel. I don't like what I've seen out of the Superman vs Batman preview. I thought Green Lantern was a movie that was on par with the Thor and Iron Man 2 and 3 movies. A decent popcorn movie.


I completely agree with everything you say above.

Also, the reviews I have read for "Age of Ultron" seem to average around 4/5 stars. It seems there is a bit of setup for the next few movies, and maybe reaching a limit of the number of characters with their own story arcs to juggle. So, not quite as good as the first Avengers, but still a pretty damn good movie.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9397
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Sat Apr 25, 2015 9:30 am

I am going to talk about two of the main critiques I have read about Age of Ultron.

"The second time does not have as much impact as the first time."
"There is a lot of setup for the coming movies."

When I consider where Marvel is right now in their story arc, I expect both of these things to happen.

Let's recap. We went through : iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Avengers, CA2: The Winter Soldier, Thor 2: The Dark World, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, and "Guardians of the Galaxy". In addition, there is the Agents of SHIELD TV series which ties into the movies somewhat.

Those movies represent two things. First, origin stories. They tell the tale of where these characters came from. They make the characters relatable and draw you in. Even the mediocre movies still do this. This includes the first Avengers movie. It is essentially the origin story of the Avengers as a "team".

The second thing these stories did was to put the heroes in peril. To give them a chance to show off their powers against whatever evil force. Whether that be in the first Avengers movie as a team, or the second (or third, in Iron Man's case), we get to see them use whatever extraordinary gifts they have.

So, now "Age of Ultron" comes along. If you stop and consider things for a moment, we HAVE seen it all before. The Avengers beating down another foe would probably still make a good movie but they also need to set up a new chapter in the tale: The heroes must suffer.

After "Age of Ultron", we are a bit battle fatigued from the same old same. Something new MUST happen to keep the audience engaged. That something is a "Civil War" within the Avengers. It's Asgard going to Hell for Thor in Ragnorak. It is Iron Man hanging up the suit, it is one or two of the Avengers dying. It is the Avengers being reduced to nothing...and leaving a vacuum to fill for the coming fight against Thanos.

That leaves an opening for new and familiar characters like Black Widow, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, or Captain Marvel, or Dr. Strange, or Antman, or even Spiderman. And, it leaves us to consider that these heroes are not indestructible...and can lose or maybe even die. If/when they come back to fight Thanos, they have risen above their suffering to an even higher extraordinary level.

THAT is good storytelling, with perfect timing in every aspect of this huge story arc.

It's not that I am anti-DC, or a 'hater', or whatever. However, I have much, much, more respect for the planning of what Marvel has done, and the execution and perfect timing of each phase. They have done a masterful job while DC seems to want to throw together a "quick fix" "Batman vs Superman" movie to "catch up" to Marvel...and it just doesn't work like that.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9397
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:40 am

Monker wrote:THAT is good storytelling, with perfect timing in every aspect of this huge story arc.


No, the timing is questionable.

In order to properly depict the Civil War sequence, more than one film would be required. So we're going to get a condensed version.

In order to properly depict Ragnarok, more than one film would be required — or at least a VERY long film, and that's not going to happen . So we're going to get a condensed version. I hope it isn't the Marvel equivalent of Conan the Destroyer.

The Infinity War spread over two movies is the right thing to do, but the first part being just three years after AoU is a rush job. Most people (and you) won't see it that way, but I can't help it.

Batman being introduced in BvS is not a rush job. There have been many times when heroes first meet, they fight. One or the other doesn't know what to make of something or someone foreign or alien and classifies him as a threat until s/he can detect otherwise. In other words, heroes will always fight villains, but when heroes fight each other, that is arguably be more exciting.

You saw a bit of that in Avengers when Iron Man and Thor — then joined by Cap — fought, and neither wanted to relent. One offensive move led to another. Iron Man even used Thor's lightning against him. When Thor found an element he could not destroy — Cap's shield, which is made of Vibranium — is when the battle ceased. In the film's third act, they all fought alongside each other.
"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 » Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:05 pm

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:THAT is good storytelling, with perfect timing in every aspect of this huge story arc.


No, the timing is questionable.


No, it's not.

Where we are right now is in the "Empire Strikes Back". What is about to come for the Marvel Universe is akin to Han being frozen in Carbonite, Luke getting his hand cut off, and Lando losing Cloud City.

YJ mentioned "Lord of the Rings". We are at a point where the Fellowship can be broken, where Saruman makes his move on the West, where the Rings shows clear signs of corrupting Frodo.

It is time for the heroes to show their vulnerability and suffer. In EVERY great story, this happens at this point in the story arc. Then, very shortly after, the heroes rise above it to defeat the ultimate evil.

The timing is EXACTLY as it should be to keep the audience engaged in the story and returning to the theater to see more. This type of pattern repeats itself over, and over, and over in EVERY successful dramatic story throughout the history of mankind. It is built into our psychology.

In order to properly depict the Civil War sequence, more than one film would be required. So we're going to get a condensed version.

In order to properly depict Ragnarok, more than one film would be required — or at least a VERY long film, and that's not going to happen . So we're going to get a condensed version. I hope it isn't the Marvel equivalent of Conan the Destroyer.


Oh, really? And, how close to the books did "Lord of the Rings" keep? Not at all. Favorite characters were removed (Tom Bombadil), important details were completely removed and/or changed (how the hobbits received their swords from Tom Bombadil...and why Merry could harm the Witch-King with his). Lines were even taken from one character and given to another (Wormtongue's speech to Eowyn about her being alone were spoken by Gandalf, not Wormtongue, in the book). In fact, "The Two Towers" is COMPLETELY different since it focused more on the traveling Hobbits then on Helm's Deep.

But, of course, people say they remained true to the spirit of the novels...and they would be right. And, they are still awesome movies telling an epic story. Therefore, remaining completely true to the comics means very little to me. Remaining true to the story they are telling NOW does. Extending those films in the way you wish would completely throw off the story arc. So, it makes absolutely no sense to do it.

The Infinity War spread over two movies is the right thing to do, but the first part being just three years after AoU is a rush job. Most people (and you) won't see it that way, but I can't help it.


You're wrong. They need to resolve the story arc quickly. That's they way the audience will demand it. if the story isn't resolved, the audience will say the story is going on too long and become disengaged and stop seeing the film. it's not a "rush job". it is following good story telling practiced.

Marvel knows what they are doing, and they are doing it incredibly well. Sit back and watch as they rake in the cash from eager movie goers...while DC suffers from a public that is critical and is hardly engaged at all.

Batman being introduced in BvS is not a rush job. There have been many times when heroes first meet, they fight. One or the other doesn't know what to make of something or someone foreign or alien and classifies him as a threat until s/he can detect otherwise. In other words, heroes will always fight villains, but when heroes fight each other, that is arguably be more exciting.


Please point to, I don't know, 5 top 20 selling movies that were written and promoted as two heroes trading blows when they first meet each other. If it happens "all the time" and is a successful strategy, you should have no problem.

You saw a bit of that in Avengers when Iron Man and Thor — then joined by Cap — fought, and neither wanted to relent. One offensive move led to another. Iron Man even used Thor's lightning against him. When Thor found an element he could not destroy — Cap's shield, which is made of Vibranium — is when the battle ceased. In the film's third act, they all fought alongside each other.
[/quote]

Avengers had around a half dozen movies to get their audience engaged and invested in the characters BEFORE they fought each other. That is COMPLETELY different then BvS. BvS has some fundamental character changes to both Batman and Superman that the audience does not even understand. Explaining it in promos and teaser/trailers is a very poor way to do it. SHOW don't tell...that is a cardinal rule in writing.

People are so well invested in the characters in Marvel that they should be ready to show a death. Imagine if Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman/Aquaman DIED in BvS. To do that is almost, but not quote, as big of a mistake as BvS is.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9397
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sat Apr 25, 2015 5:15 pm

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:THAT is good storytelling, with perfect timing in every aspect of this huge story arc.


No, the timing is questionable.


No, it's not.

Where we are right now is in the "Empire Strikes Back". What is about to come for the Marvel Universe is akin to Han being frozen in Carbonite, Luke getting his hand cut off, and Lando losing Cloud City.


Star Wars timeline references, dude? Haha. Those movies are riddled with so many errors, they resemble paper targets at a shooting range. Each of those films has such a glaringly different feel, pace and directing style, I can barely watch them. Return of the Jedi, in particular, is a chore. It's just a bad movie.

Monker wrote:YJ mentioned "Lord of the Rings". We are at a point where the Fellowship can be broken, where Saruman makes his move on the West, where the Rings shows clear signs of corrupting Frodo.

It is time for the heroes to show their vulnerability and suffer. In EVERY great story, this happens at this point in the story arc. Then, very shortly after, the heroes rise above it to defeat the ultimate evil.


Shower us with your wisdom, Prof. Btw, did you get those last three lines from the Japanese poster for Empire?

Monker wrote:The timing is EXACTLY as it should be to keep the audience engaged in the story and returning to the theater to see more. This type of pattern repeats itself over, and over, and over in EVERY successful dramatic story throughout the history of mankind. It is built into our psychology.


Again, Civil War, to be depicted properly should require two films. The same for Ragnarok, or one 210-minute film, at least. I'm sure you'll be just fine with whatever you see put in front of you, though.

Monker wrote:Oh, really? And, how close to the books did "Lord of the Rings" keep? Not at all. Favorite characters were removed (Tom Bombadil), important details were completely removed and/or changed (how the hobbits received their swords from Tom Bombadil...and why Merry could harm the Witch-King with his). Lines were even taken from one character and given to another (Wormtongue's speech to Eowyn about her being alone were spoken by Gandalf, not Wormtongue, in the book). In fact, "The Two Towers" is COMPLETELY different since it focused more on the traveling Hobbits then on Helm's Deep.


Yeah, and we didn't get to see the Huorns and Saruman met a completely different demise. And so on. Still, using LotR makes for a bad comparison. Here's why: those books are prose novels, not comics. Your mind produces every visual aspect when you read a prose novel. Comics are akin to movie storyboards — the combination of images and text make the medium. Storyboards are created to help block a movie out. The director can work off the storyboards and make changes before or after the filming of any given segment. The Hobbit is a short book, the story was bloated with material from The Silmarillion and The Appendices and even new bits (Tauriel) to manufacture another trilogy for maximum profit. The LotR trilogy is one long slow-moving narrative that was subsequently split into three parts. If you filmed it faithfully, scene for scene, 70% of moviegoers would walk out. To translate that story to film, there really was no option other than to make heavy changes. Jackson didn't just fuck with the story and characters, he fucked with the topography.

Monker wrote:But, of course, people say they remained true to the spirit of the novels...and they would be right. And, they are still awesome movies telling an epic story. Therefore, remaining completely true to the comics means very little to me. Remaining true to the story they are telling NOW does. Extending those films in the way you wish would completely throw off the story arc. So, it makes absolutely no sense to do it.


And that's exactly why you keep arguing your perspective when you should just wait for BvS and if you still give a shit, watch it. With comics, action is always a given and arcs that rely on many pages of flashback exposition are usually given their own installment. There's no need to truncate something like Civil War because there was never a fifteen page meditation on whether or not Steve Rogers should repaint his shield purple and pink. :lol:

Monker wrote:You're wrong. They need to resolve the story arc quickly. That's they way the audience will demand it. if the story isn't resolved, the audience will say the story is going on too long and become disengaged and stop seeing the film. it's not a "rush job". it is following good story telling practiced.

Marvel knows what they are doing, and they are doing it incredibly well. Sit back and watch as they rake in the cash from eager movie goers...while DC suffers from a public that is critical and is hardly engaged at all.


I hate to break it to you, but there are a LOT of people who are looking forward to seeing Batman and Superman share the big screen for the first time. And by a lot, I mean a shit-ton.

Monker wrote:Please point to, I don't know, 5 top 20 selling movies that were written and promoted as two heroes trading blows when they first meet each other. If it happens "all the time" and is a successful strategy, you should have no problem.


Once again, you're not reading closely enough. I said it happens, and by now you should know I'm primarily referring to comics. I can't being to count how many confrontations there have been between heroes, whether by intent, accident, external forces, or whatever. Batman has fought many other heroes (one time he decked, in clear view of other League members, the Guy Gardner version of Green Lantern and knocked him out cold for running his mouth), and he and Superman (here we go again) fought in Frank Miller's bestselling The Dark Knight Returns, now roughly three decades old, and that is the source of the tone for the movie, right from Zack's mouth. Note that I said tone, because the motive in TDKR was different.

Also, if we adhere completely to your point, then what we're going to have is something never done before: a film built on the premise of two of the most famous comics superheroes duking it out. And you think that's wrong, or boring, or weird? Hey, baby, there's a first time for everything. My Magic 8-Ball has already foreseen your buying your IMAX ticket. :lol:

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:You saw a bit of that in Avengers when Iron Man and Thor — then joined by Cap — fought, and neither wanted to relent. One offensive move led to another. Iron Man even used Thor's lightning against him. When Thor found an element he could not destroy — Cap's shield, which is made of Vibranium — is when the battle ceased. In the film's third act, they all fought alongside each other.


Avengers had around a half dozen movies to get their audience engaged and invested in the characters BEFORE they fought each other.


Not exactly. There was a fight between two Iron Men in Iron Man 2 (that movie WAS admittedly a rush job, and poorly scripted). Tony's drunk, Rhodes gets mad, and then we learn that the latter is somehow able to operate a suit well enough to have an impromptu showdown with his boss-buddy right in his own house. Jarvis never shuts down Rhodes' suit (which should have prevented his operation of it, anyway). Also, Rhodes takes off with it, never returns it, and shows up later as War Machine, which is another fuck-up in the Iron Man movies. In the comics, Stark and Rhodes have a falling out and Rhodes does escape with the suit, but he beefs it up (not quite Hulkbuster size, but larger than the standard suit) and kicks Tony's ass in the inevitable showdown. If that had been combined with the alcoholism storyline for Iron Man 3, that would have more than made up for the crap we got in Iron Man 2. Instead, they gave us faux-Mandarin.

Monker wrote:That is COMPLETELY different then BvS. BvS has some fundamental character changes to both Batman and Superman that the audience does not even understand. Explaining it in promos and teaser/trailers is a very poor way to do it. SHOW don't tell...that is a cardinal rule in writing.


We've only had one teaser, and it depicted, to the letter, what Zack told us he was going to do. More teasers, and trailers, are scheduled and the rest of the story will become more apparent.

Monker wrote:People are so well invested in the characters in Marvel that they should be ready to show a death. Imagine if Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman/Aquaman DIED in BvS. To do that is almost, but not quote, as big of a mistake as BvS is.


And why are they so "well invested"? Maybe it's because they're eight movies into the MCU (not even counting Incredible Hulk), and the second DCCU installment is being fine-tuned, and the ball is rolling on the third DCCU film, Suicide Squad. Patience, grasshopper.
Last edited by verslibre on Sun Apr 26, 2015 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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 » Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:27 am

and it just doesn't work like that.


Yes it certainly does and it will for DC. This direction works for them and they don't have to follow the same tiring model Marvel already did. Stop being a shill :lol:
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:58 am

That is COMPLETELY different then BvS. BvS has some fundamental character changes to both Batman and Superman that the audience does not even understand. Explaining it in promos and teaser/trailers is a very poor way to do it. SHOW don't tell...that is a cardinal rule in writing


I would like to know what fundamental changes there were to Superman and Batman that occurred. In Man of Steel it is known he is an alien and that story asked the question how the world would react if an alien walked amongst us. In the BvS trailer, the public is responding. We see Superman saving a Russian rocketship.

Batman is seen pissed off, dark and his usual brooding self. This is Superman and Batman's first meeting. They obviously don't know each other. The other reason is because...

..because HE'S BATMAN! Ok. We're caught up. Everyone's good. Then this thing called watching the movie happens. Rocket science.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:55 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:
That is COMPLETELY different then BvS. BvS has some fundamental character changes to both Batman and Superman that the audience does not even understand. Explaining it in promos and teaser/trailers is a very poor way to do it. SHOW don't tell...that is a cardinal rule in writing


I would like to know what fundamental changes there were to Superman and Batman that occurred. In Man of Steel it is known he is an alien and that story asked the question how the world would react if an alien walked amongst us. In the BvS trailer, the public is responding. We see Superman saving a Russian rocketship.

Batman is seen pissed off, dark and his usual brooding self. This is Superman and Batman's first meeting. They obviously don't know each other. The other reason is because...

..because HE'S BATMAN! Ok. We're caught up. Everyone's good. Then this thing called watching the movie happens. Rocket science.


You may not like it but Superman is a brand new character with a brand new actor. He has one film under his cape to get people into this new version of the character. I don't know if that is enough. Since this is a Superman that the public supposedly doesn't like or trust, it is a change from the past where public loved the guy. So, IMO, it's a bit up in the air if people have bought into that concept of the character and care about him much.

For Batman, well, again it is a new character with a new actor. This time he is supposed to be this middle-aged more "experienced" Batman. Nobody has seen this version of the character before...at least not on film. So, the audience doesn't realy know him and therefore doesn't care about him...especially when he is the antagonizing character with what seems a very unlikable persona.

So, IMO, many people are going to look at those two characters "fighting" and being confused at best and completely uninterested at worst.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9397
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:10 am

All of that is going to be fleshed out during the development within the movie itself. Superman got one film under his belt, true, and it set that all up. The next development stage is to care about Superman because he is misunderstood and villains like Lex Luthor is there to exploit that. Does Lex Luthor need an entire 2 movies to be fleshed out? I don't think so and this is a Lex that hasn't been done on screen either. All people need to know is that Lex Luthor has bad intentions and Superman has good intentions. Batman is mysterious. Always has been, always will. The audience will understand that because like Cavill said, this movie sets Batman up as well.

It's probably going to be a 2.5 hour movie with the juicy stuff the audience can identity with. It's going to be covered and the story will continue within the next phase of movies, thus world building.

You do know this movie isn't just going to be a straight up Batman/Superman fight, right? The audience still deserves to go through the eb and flow of the conflict and solution of the movie rather than needing to know everything about it. More plot details will be revealed later. It's only just begun and is still 11 months away. We don't need to know everything at this instance. I know Marvelites are use that type of spoon feeding.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:41 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Superman got one film under his belt, true, and it set that all up.


Thor = one movie before Avengers.

Captain American = one movie before Avengers.

Nobody seemed to have a problem being "more" familiar with only Iron Man. Hawkeye has a blink-and-miss-it appearance in Thor, but nobody went "Who's this guy?" in Avengers. Black Widow, another principal character without her own solo film so far. Everybody bought her as a character and Avenger with no problem. There was so much damned promo before the movie came out, NObody had any issues with who was onscreen.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:You do know this movie isn't just going to be a straight up Batman/Superman fight, right?


Even if we got another solo Supes film and a solo Bats film first, people would complain. "Why are they fighting? They're friiiends!" Shit, they even locked horns in the flippin' cartoons. People need to watch the movie. :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 RedWingFan » Sun Apr 26, 2015 7:50 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:I love the Hulk. One of the Marvel character's I care for about for sure. Too bad they still have no fucking clue what to do with him.

The Hulk suffers from the same problem that DC has with Superman. They're both indestructable. No vulnerability, no real danger, tension or drama. The Incredible Hulk was a good flick. We didn't learn about him being indestructible until Ruffalo said he ate a bullet in Avengers. At least Hulk has being unpredictable going for him.
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 YoungJRNYfan » Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:15 am

RedWingFan wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:I love the Hulk. One of the Marvel character's I care for about for sure. Too bad they still have no fucking clue what to do with him.

The Hulk suffers from the same problem that DC has with Superman. They're both indestructable. No vulnerability, no real danger, tension or drama. The Incredible Hulk was a good flick. We didn't learn about him being indestructible until Ruffalo said he ate a bullet in Avengers. At least Hulk has being unpredictable going for him.


What Hulk and especially Superman need is to get out of their Earth-bound barriers and be put into bigger situations.

That's what is great about a wider DCCinamatic Universe because it opens up the galaxy for opponents such as Darkseid on Apokolips and say, Brainiac and his bottle city of Kandor that would challenge Superman on a completely alienated atmosphere different than Earth's. Supes never had that intergalactic journey across the galaxy before and that's where I think all kinds of different scenario's can suddenly appear to benefit Superman and his onscreen importance.

What I liked about MoS is that it explored more of his sci-fi roots where he was seen to be struggling in so you just need to put Superman in bigger situations than Batman could find himself into on the streets of Gotham with everyday, normal thugs that can be put behind bars.

In the DCCinamticUniverse, that is highly possible and he's had his run-in's against magic beings as well, like Shazam or Black Adam, who are apart of this Universe where the Rock already mentioned how he looks forward to throwing down with Superman. Also, Aquaman is one tough mf'er and Snyder said his trident can cut Superman's flesh. I hope they scale this thing to unmeasurable heights where the audience wouldn't think was possible.

Same thing Hulk needs. Just create a bigger threat and put him in a situation where only he can handle and struggle at the same time and there you have a Hulk that can be set free with creative ideas.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Sun Apr 26, 2015 8:21 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:Same thing Hulk needs. Just create a bigger threat and put him in a situation where only he can handle and struggle at the same time and there you have a Hulk that can be set free with creative ideas.

I think that's the thing with Hulk though. He needs other characters in Avengers to get to that bigger intergalactic threat stuff. Superman wouldn't need that help, but there still needs to be a connection to Earth and the human race.
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 Monker » Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:34 am

verslibre wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Superman got one film under his belt, true, and it set that all up.


Thor = one movie before Avengers.

Captain American = one movie before Avengers.


Correct...and nobody was asking "Why are these characters getting together to be in one group?" like people are asking "Why are Batman and Superman fighting?" Therefore, it should be obvious to even you that the audience was ready for Avengers but they are NOT ready for BvS.

What you are ignoring is after your quote above, I said I DIDN'T KNOW if MoS was enough. I don't know, and neither do you. What I do know is after watching MoS a few times I never thought, "Wow, this guy has a potential problem with the world turning on him." So, what was shown in the preview seemed like completely forced drama.

Even if we got another solo Supes film and a solo Bats film first, people would complain. "Why are they fighting? They're friiiends!" Shit, they even locked horns in the flippin' cartoons. People need to watch the movie. :lol:


Now you are just pulling things out of your ass and making things up. You have no idea how people would react if that happened. if those movies were crap, nobody would be into it. And, maybe that is what you and DC were really afraid of.
Last edited by Monker on Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9397
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:36 am

RedWingFan wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:I love the Hulk. One of the Marvel character's I care for about for sure. Too bad they still have no fucking clue what to do with him.

The Hulk suffers from the same problem that DC has with Superman. They're both indestructable. No vulnerability, no real danger, tension or drama. The Incredible Hulk was a good flick. We didn't learn about him being indestructible until Ruffalo said he ate a bullet in Avengers. At least Hulk has being unpredictable going for him.


I don't think he said he was 'indestructible'....he said he couldn't die. There is a big difference.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9397
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:42 am

Correct...and nobody was asking "Why are these characters getting together to be in one group?" like people are asking "Why are Batman and Superman fighting?" Therefore, it should be obvious to even you that the audience was ready for Avengers but they are NOT ready for BvS.


The movie is still 11 months away. Once the marketing revs up and this thing kicks into overdrive, people will be ready for BvS. If they are ever-so-willing to ask the question, then they are now. Lets not kid ourselves. The BvS footage was the FIRST footage we've seen of the film. The public will see more from now until 2016. It's still way early in the marketing process. Stop acting like it is. The teaser sold the BvS title.

What I do know is after watching MoS a few times I never thought, "Wow, this guy has a potential problem with the world turning on him." So, what was shown in the previous seemed like completely forced drama.


Are you serious? Our own military turned Supes in to Zod and Lois was captured by our Government because she was sold out. When Zod's ultimatum to Superman hit the airwaves, the airwaves were blowing up with people freaking out. Literally one of the last scenes in MoS was the government still not trusting him. Pay attention.


And, maybe that is what you and DC were really afraid of.


Now you are just pulling things out of your ass and making things up.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:38 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:I love the Hulk. One of the Marvel character's I care for about for sure. Too bad they still have no fucking clue what to do with him.

The Hulk suffers from the same problem that DC has with Superman. They're both indestructable. No vulnerability, no real danger, tension or drama. The Incredible Hulk was a good flick. We didn't learn about him being indestructible until Ruffalo said he ate a bullet in Avengers. At least Hulk has being unpredictable going for him.


Hulk has a weakness: in the hands of a lazy writer, he's a one-note character. When Hulk retained Banner's intellect is when things got really interesting. That, and Planet Hulk and World War Hulk are awesome stories.

Superman has some weaknesses that, if exploited properly, have the potential to do him in.
"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 » Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:42 pm

YoungJRNYfan wrote:
Correct...and nobody was asking "Why are these characters getting together to be in one group?" like people are asking "Why are Batman and Superman fighting?" Therefore, it should be obvious to even you that the audience was ready for Avengers but they are NOT ready for BvS.


The movie is still 11 months away. Once the marketing revs up and this thing kicks into overdrive, people will be ready for BvS. If they are ever-so-willing to ask the question, then they are now. Lets not kid ourselves. The BvS footage was the FIRST footage we've seen of the film. The public will see more from now until 2016. It's still way early in the marketing process. Stop acting like it is. The teaser sold the BvS title.


I can't believe we still have to stress these two points. :lol:

YoungJRNYfan wrote:
What I do know is after watching MoS a few times I never thought, "Wow, this guy has a potential problem with the world turning on him." So, what was shown in the previous seemed like completely forced drama.


Are you serious? Our own military turned Supes in to Zod and Lois was captured by our Government because she was sold out. When Zod's ultimatum to Superman hit the airwaves, the airwaves were blowing up with people freaking out. Literally one of the last scenes in MoS was the government still not trusting him. Pay attention.


Yup. It's there in MoS. That movie sets up BvS. I don't understand what all the complaints are for. Maybe they'll package a Snyder's Notes (in the tradition of Cliff's Notes) for those who are impatient or still can't comprehend why there could possibly be a confrontation between two beings, one of whom is an extraterrestrial.
"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 » Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:50 pm

verslibre wrote:
....for those who are impatient or still can't comprehend why there could possibly be a confrontation between two beings, one of whom is an extraterrestrial.


Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the most simple terms, laid out the plot on the Daily Show. Here's what he said:

"Batman has a figure of authority to report to — the Mayor in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. And the public likes that. Batman makes them feel safe. Superman on the other hand, has no public figure to report to. He just does whatever he wants. At the end of the day, what might matter is the public reception of the superheroes conduct. If Batman executes our wishes in the city, and Superman does whatever the hell he wants… that’s a conflict.” Tyson explained.


It goes back to the original point of Man of Steel being Superman's origin story and basically Supes not understanding the limits of his powers or the repercussion's of what they may cause if he was ever in a situation to defend himself, as it played out with Zod (destruction.) Batman has a problem with an alien with so much power who has no idea how to use it and he wants to bring Supes back down to Earth level.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun May 03, 2015 2:22 am

This guy sounds like a real douche!

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/josh-trank-fired-from-star-wars-fantastic-four-117930916957.html

While director Josh Trank said Friday that he had “made a personal decision” to leave the Star Wars universe, sources say reports of the young director’s unusual conduct during the making of Fox’s upcoming Fantastic Four movie had raised alarm among Lucasfilm executives that were entrusting him with the second Star Wars standalone film.


Indeed, producers on Fantastic Four, set for release July 30, are said to have faced great challenges pulling the film together given behavior described by one insider as “erratic” and at times “very isolated.” Trank did not offer clear direction, this person adds, saying, “If you’ve got someone who can’t answer questions or who isn’t sure or is in hiding, that’s not good.”


Just over three months from opening, Fox’s Fantastic Four has done re-shoots. Those were complicated because stars Miles Teller, Kate Mara and Michael B. Jordan had obligations on other films.


:shock:
"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 » Mon May 04, 2015 10:41 am

Just saw Age of Ultron this afternoon on Imax. Fantastic. Action packed, continuing a great storyline. Loved the ending as Marvel looks like they're going to continue this thing with new characters rather than rebooting every 10-12 years like other studios. Can't wait for Ant-Man, Black Panther and Dr. Strange to be added to the mix.
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 jestor92 » Mon May 04, 2015 11:11 am

I saw Age of Ultron this weekend and thought it was pretty good. Nothing amazing, but not terrible either. I don't want to post anything that bothered me about the movie due to spoilers.

One of the things that bothered me though to me it seemed like the pacing was a bit slow at times. You could feel what was going to happen next, and at points it just seemed more of the same. Like hey we've done this and have seen this before kind of feel.

Solid movie, but the first Avengers was better.
User avatar
jestor92
8 Track
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:49 am


Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Tue May 05, 2015 9:12 am



Social media drama aside, Whedon has a big reason to celebrate this week. Avengers: Age of Ultron made more than $191 million over the weekend making it the second-largest box office opening weekend for a film ever. With that kind of success, who needs to tweet?


And, what film is #1? ;)
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9397
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

PreviousNext

Return to Death By Stereo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests