Marvel Movie thread

Off Topic Babble. The really important stuff...

Moderator: Andrew

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Tue May 05, 2015 9:30 am

I thought it was every bit as good as the first movie. The bits of "I've seen this before" were more the fighting scenes, ironically. They did do some new combo moves that were pretty cool...but Hulk smashes, Captain America throws his shield, Thor hammers, and Iron Man does iron stuff. To me, this had more story in it. The reality is this is more of an origin story for Scarlet Witch and Vision then anything else. It also sets up Civil War pretty well. I was also happy that the love story between Hulk and Black Widow had a reason to be there, rather than just a token love infusion thing.

A lot of story lines were left open for people to think about...the visions from Scarlet Witch, especially...and the bit with Hulk at the end.

I agree that they left the impression of swapping in new characters. Marvel is going to suffer from "hero overload" if they are not careful. Yes, Ant-man and Dr. Strange are coming. So is Captain Marvel, and probably Spiderman. How many superheroes does it take to defeat Thanos? I guess we'll eventually find out.

Also, Thor said four Infinity Stones have been revealed. It's actually five...he doesn't know about the one from Guardians of the Galaxy. I'm betting the last one will be revealed in Dr. Strange.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9392
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Tue May 05, 2015 9:48 am

Monker wrote:
And, what film is #1? ;)


What rhymes with "no competition"? :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 » Tue May 05, 2015 9:51 am

Monker wrote:I thought it was every bit as good as the first movie.


It was and it wasn't. Parts of it weren't as good, parts of it were as good, and parts of it were better.

But without getting spoiler-ish (yet), Whedon really dropped the ball when it came to Ultron. Virtually everyone that has seen it has reported that he was not an intimidating villain AT ALL, and that is NOT how Ultron should be depicted. His dialogue sucked. And the movie pulled a whopper of a deus ex machina.

Oh, well.
"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 » Tue May 05, 2015 10:15 am

Monker wrote:How many superheroes does it take to defeat Thanos? I guess we'll eventually find out.


ALL of them.

Oops, sorry for the spoiler. :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 May 05, 2015 11:29 am

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:I thought it was every bit as good as the first movie.


It was and it wasn't. Parts of it weren't as good, parts of it were as good, and parts of it were better.

But without getting spoiler-ish (yet), Whedon really dropped the ball when it came to Ultron. Virtually everyone that has seen it has reported that he was not an intimidating villain AT ALL, and that is NOT how Ultron should be depicted. His dialogue sucked. And the movie pulled a whopper of a deus ex machina.

Oh, well.


I hadn't even thought of Ultron in that way until you mentioned it above. Whedon's greatest strength is he knows how to create contrasting characters and have them interact. That is exactly what he did with Ultron. If you think about where Ultron gets his personality from, Scarlet Witch alluded to this late in the film, it explains where his quirkiness comes from. I enjoyed watching him interact with the other characters in this strange dysfunctional, insane, sorta way. It deepens your awareness of the true character of certain Avengers and further sets up the next few films. I feel that is what Joss was going for..and was the correct decision. We didn't need a tougher villan and more intense fight scenes in this movie to make it better. We needed less of that and more drama between characters - and that's what we got...on all fronts.

And, BTW, Joss will be missed. He was a huge part in building these characters up to where they are now. it will be interesting to see who steps up to the plate to continue the high standard he set. You can't deny that directing the top two films with the biggest opening days is a huge accomplishment.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9392
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Tue May 05, 2015 11:44 am

Monker wrote:


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? ;)

You know 75% of ticket sales were people going to see the BvS trailer don't you?
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: 7674
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Tue May 05, 2015 12:48 pm

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:I thought it was every bit as good as the first movie.


It was and it wasn't. Parts of it weren't as good, parts of it were as good, and parts of it were better.

But without getting spoiler-ish (yet), Whedon really dropped the ball when it came to Ultron. Virtually everyone that has seen it has reported that he was not an intimidating villain AT ALL, and that is NOT how Ultron should be depicted. His dialogue sucked. And the movie pulled a whopper of a deus ex machina.

Oh, well.


I hadn't even thought of Ultron in that way until you mentioned it above. Whedon's greatest strength is he knows how to create contrasting characters and have them interact. That is exactly what he did with Ultron. If you think about where Ultron gets his personality from, Scarlet Witch alluded to this late in the film, it explains where his quirkiness comes from. I enjoyed watching him interact with the other characters in this strange dysfunctional, insane, sorta way. It deepens your awareness of the true character of certain Avengers and further sets up the next few films. I feel that is what Joss was going for..and was the correct decision. We didn't need a tougher villan and more intense fight scenes in this movie to make it better. We needed less of that and more drama between characters - and that's what we got...on all fronts.


I think I'm arguing with a fervent Whedonite, but I'll respond, anyway. Avengers 2 DID need a tougher villain. Ultron is not supposed to be "quirky." He's supposed to be fearsome. He's not supposed to quote the Bible at leisure. That was ridiculous. He's not supposed to resemble a Dr. Who robot. They made his features more humanesque and I sensed some woeful attempt to make him pathetic and tragic on a subtle level. Wrong move. As far as the battle went, it was alright, yet nobody will contest the fact it's essentially "Chitauri Part Deux." I don't get why Vision translated so effectively to the screen while the big baddie was reduced to little more than an eight foot tall metallic incarnation of Dr. Evil. All he needed to do was shave a cat. Maybe Spader was given too much free license with his lines.

In retrospect, the same fucking thing happened with Flint Marko in SM3. He's supposed to be a dick. They shouldn't be afraid to have a really BAD guy for a villain.

Monker wrote:And, BTW, Joss will be missed. He was a huge part in building these characters up to where they are now. it will be interesting to see who steps up to the plate to continue the high standard he set. You can't deny that directing the top two films with the biggest opening days is a huge accomplishment.


Not by me. He did what he could. He already delved into recycling (the whole prelude of Age of Ultron is exactly that, down to the @#$&! tracking shot). After seeing what the Russos did with The Winter Soldier (which many still consider to be the best MCU film), I know the Infinity War installments will be darker, more intense and less reliant on the kind of humor Joss believes everything he does needs. They'll be better.

Don't get me wrong. I still enjoyed the movie for what is was. One thing Avengers: Age of Ultron does prove: you CAN have a film with a bunch of characters. Every naysayer who thinks BvS is going to have too many characters just got proven wrong. Age of Ultron gave us the regulars, three characters from the other solo films, AND three new ones. No problem.
"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 May 05, 2015 9:16 pm

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:
And, what film is #1? ;)


What rhymes with "no competition"? :lol:


"The 100 year-old Man Who Climbed Out Of the Window and Disappeared" should give it a run for its money. :lol:
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Tue May 05, 2015 10:12 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
You know 75% of ticket sales were people going to see the BvS trailer don't you?


Judging from your fellow Marvelites and their "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" meltdowns in box office forums, that 75% must be true once it was clear that AoU wasn't going to make 200mil or break the record for OW, because those fucktard Marvel-imbecile fanboys are labeling AoU "subpar" because of it. Lmao! Those Marvelites are ultimately going to be their own downfall and are straight up wicked assholes, who bullied Joss Whedeon straight off of Twitter for the characterization of Black Widow. Pathetic dipshits.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Wed May 06, 2015 1:19 pm

Lol... You get angrier and angrier with each quality successful Marvel film. :D Hope DC is pinching those pennies with Suicide Squad. If it doesn't break even (which is very likely) they'll probably pull the plug (again). :D
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: 7674
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Wed May 06, 2015 4:27 pm

Suicide Squad comes after BvS, so the momentum will be there. Roughly 90% of the comments I've read are in favor of the recent pix, especially Harley Quinn and Deadshot. Bruce Timm has chimed in: he didn't think he was going to like Harley's look for the movie, but he does. (It doesn't mean that's the sole look she'll have throughout the entirety of the movie.)

And hey, having Joker and Batman in there, too? Yeah. :)
"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 May 06, 2015 9:21 pm

RedWingFan wrote:Lol... You get angrier and angrier with each quality successful Marvel film. :D Hope DC is pinching those pennies with Suicide Squad. If it doesn't break even (which is very likely) they'll probably pull the plug (again). :D


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Dude, remind yourself it's keyboard talk. I'm not angry at Marvel movies lol ( Read again: my post was in defense of AoU from whining fanboys who in turn, bullied and death threat'ed Joss Whedon right off Social Media.) That's about as lame and pathetic as it will ever get. Have I enjoyed Marvel films? You bet. Do I think most of them are overrated? Absolutely. Am I burned out on them? Yes, but that doesn't mean I do not appreciate them because at the end of the day, success equals competition and with competition brings the best out in the competitor.

In the end, the genre of superhero movie's win. Marvel and the tone they bring to their movies and how they execute their Universe is not my cup of tea and is way too bubble gum for my liking. Green Lantern and Superman Returns (DC properties) wasn't to my liking either. In fact, I fucking loath those films.

Fact of the matter is, The Dark Knight Trilogy really was the second boom period for comic book movies and Bruce Wayne-ish like characters, like Tony Stark, followed. Because of the success of the Dark Knight Trilogy, it gives common sense and logistics to the genre and how much more money is to be made with these characters and movies whether it be DC or Marvel and Marvel is proving this with film after film.

From the looks of AoU reviews, it seems the Marvel model is fatiguing people a bit, which bodes well for the competitor DC because they are making a Universe of their superhero's in a completely different vein and that's what it's all about. Diversity in the genre will only bring more people to the movies who prefer something different.

That said, the post above is in defense of AoU from shit-eating fanboys. These delusional fanboys who label a film "subpar" or a "failure" nowadays are judging if the film either A.) Lived up to their preconceived expectations or the vision of their expectations or B.) Didn't hit a set number of money they were expecting at the BO.

Though AoU is on its way to a billion, most hardcore fans are TRASHING it because it wasn't the best opening of all time or broke OW records, nevermind the 75% it has on Rotten Tomatoes. Because of that, pompous fanboy's who can't decide if they like a movie for themselves without bragging rights involved are rioting on the internet. It's the bandwagon of all bandwagon with these people and they are ruining the essence of what these films are supposed to be. It's pathetic, really.
Last edited by YoungJRNYfan on Wed May 06, 2015 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby YoungJRNYfan » Wed May 06, 2015 10:03 pm

James Gunn, Director of 'Guardians of the Galaxy', weighs in on fan outrage and the fallout of the social media exit from 'Age of Ultron' director, Joss Whedon:



On Monday, director and screenwriter Joss Whedon deleted his Twitter account because he was being harassed by trolls on the internet who were enraged with aspects of Avengers: Age of Ultron. They went as far as sending Whedon death threats and the truly uneducated accused him of being a misogynist. Really? Calling Whedon a misogynist is like calling Donald Trump a communist.

Today, Guardians of the Galaxy director and co-screenwriter James Gunn has weighed in on the matter via Twitter and Facebook. In Gunn's lengthy and eloquent post on Facebook he defends Whedon, pleads to fandom to be kinder and shares his own personal experience with trollish behavior.

Below is James Gunn's Facebook post in its entirety:

"Imagine being a guy, like Joss Whedon, who has committed his life to fandom and to creating the best characters he possibly can, characters he loves, and has spent two years of his life working on a movie, and then has to wake up to this s**t on Twitter. Yes, I know - Age of Ultron has an "A" Cinemascore, and far and away most people loved it. But the angry contingent of fandom is getting more aggressive all the time, and it's difficult to block out as a person in the public eye.

My plea to all of you - and this is nothing new - is that we all try to be a little kinder, on the Internet and elsewhere. And, honestly, that includes being kind to the people who are tweeting this nonsense. I don't believe you can tweet about wanting to find a movie director and "curbstomp" him and be a happy person. That person's statement might make you a little angry - that makes me angry too. But thank God the circumstances of my life and your life didn't lead us to being the person that has the need to anonymously tweet that to someone on the Internet. And, as much as we may want to respond with vitriol to these tweets, I think that just creates more insanity.

As a young person I was very angry, and it's something I have worked on, both personally and through years of therapy. And if I can say one truth about anger, it is that anger is almost never anger. Anger - especially aggressive and abusive anger - is a way to deal with feeling insecure, sad, hurt, vulnerable, powerless, fearful, or confused. Those feelings, for many of us, are a lot more difficult to deal with and acknowledge than anger. Anger makes us feel "right". And powerful. But it also usually exacerbates whatever the underlying, more uncomfortable feeling is.

A couple months ago someone on Twitter wrote me that something one of my characters said in my movie hurt him. I've gotten hundreds of tweets from people angry about moments in my films over the years, and I just ignore them, or get angry in return. But that one tweet affected me profoundly. The last thing I want to do with my work is hurt someone, especially someone who already feels disenfranchised. That made me think about what I write and what I put in my films, and I will be more thoughtful about situations like it in the future. That is, one honest and vulnerable tweet affected more change in me than hundreds of angry ones.

So, again, it's easy to be outraged by these tweets. But whatever these angry tweeters are in need of, I don't think it's more anger and more rage thrown back at them on Twitter. I actually think that's what they're seeking. But what they need is something different. Compassion, maybe? A kind request for boundaries? I don't know. Maybe you guys have some ideas.

And by the way - Yes, I know there are real issues at play here. But, again, I don't think the way to affect change is through rage. That is just going to increase whatever divide you're experiencing in the first place. I believe that there are a handful of truly evil, awful human beings out there. But the majority of us on all sides of an issue think we're doing the right thing and are doing the best we can. If we assume that of each other, it makes life a lot easier.

Love you all,

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

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby Monker » Thu May 07, 2015 3:02 am

You still come off as angry, or at least jealous. But, whatever.

The simple fact is the Spiderman movie from back in 2002, or whenever, is what first proved how popular a comic franchise could be. That combined with the X-Men movies is probably what got the Marvel plan going. Why should they allow these other companies earn so much money off of what were their original creations and not do anything themselves? That got them off their asses to start creating their own universe. They are absolutely NOT copying what DC did with Batman...Bruce Wayne isn't even comparable in character to Tony Stark....they are completely different. The only similarities are they are both rich and wear a superhero suit.

I will never believe the "genre" of superhero movies win with BOTH DC (and x-men, and fantastic four, and whatever) and Marvel releasing three or more movies per year. An inevitable bubble will form and pop and everybody will lose. And, since DC isn't giving people time to be invested emotionally in their characters, they will be hit hardest.

Of course people are getting fatigued of the same old same from Marvel. That is why dramatic events like deaths must happen. I told you it is the PERFECT time for those things to happen. The audience is set up for it RIGHT NOW. Marvel knows what they are doing.

Who cares what a few hundred vocal people on the internet think? You? I bet the people at Marvel would rather listen to the millions who buy the movie tickets instead. They know what their audience wants.

YoungJRNYfan wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:Lol... You get angrier and angrier with each quality successful Marvel film. :D Hope DC is pinching those pennies with Suicide Squad. If it doesn't break even (which is very likely) they'll probably pull the plug (again). :D


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Dude, remind yourself it's keyboard talk. I'm not angry at Marvel movies lol ( Read again: my post was in defense of AoU from whining fanboys who in turn, bullied and death threat'ed Joss Whedon right off Social Media.) That's about as lame and pathetic as it will ever get. Have I enjoyed Marvel films? You bet. Do I think most of them are overrated? Absolutely. Am I burned out on them? Yes, but that doesn't mean I do not appreciate them because at the end of the day, success equals competition and with competition brings the best out in the competitor.

In the end, the genre of superhero movie's win. Marvel and the tone they bring to their movies and how they execute their Universe is not my cup of tea and is way too bubble gum for my liking. Green Lantern and Superman Returns (DC properties) wasn't to my liking either. In fact, I fucking loath those films.

Fact of the matter is, The Dark Knight Trilogy really was the second boom period for comic book movies and Bruce Wayne-ish like characters, like Tony Stark, followed. Because of the success of the Dark Knight Trilogy, it gives common sense and logistics to the genre and how much more money is to be made with these characters and movies whether it be DC or Marvel and Marvel is proving this with film after film.

From the looks of AoU reviews, it seems the Marvel model is fatiguing people a bit, which bodes well for the competitor DC because they are making a Universe of their superhero's in a completely different vein and that's what it's all about. Diversity in the genre will only bring more people to the movies who prefer something different.

That said, the post above is in defense of AoU from shit-eating fanboys. These delusional fanboys who label a film "subpar" or a "failure" nowadays are judging if the film either A.) Lived up to their preconceived expectations or the vision of their expectations or B.) Didn't hit a set number of money they were expecting at the BO.

Though AoU is on its way to a billion, most hardcore fans are TRASHING it because it wasn't the best opening of all time or broke OW records, nevermind the 75% it has on Rotten Tomatoes. Because of that, pompous fanboy's who can't decide if they like a movie for themselves without bragging rights involved are rioting on the internet. It's the bandwagon of all bandwagon with these people and they are ruining the essence of what these films are supposed to be. It's pathetic, really.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9392
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Thu May 07, 2015 3:53 am

Monker wrote:The simple fact is the Spiderman movie from back in 2002, or whenever, is what first proved how popular a comic franchise could be.


I could've sworn it was Batman. There were four Batman films before the Nolan trilogy, and only three Spider-Man films before the reboot — and now it is being rebooted AGAIN, and fewer people give a shit about one of the best characters out there. But getting back to Batman, Burton's movie was regarded a triumph, with hype up the wazoo and lines of people around theaters. I know, because I was in one of those lines. It wasn't till BatClooney where I didn't bother seeing a Batman film in the theater. (In fact, I dozed off during that piece o' shit in front of the TV.)

Monker wrote:That combined with the X-Men movies is probably what got the Marvel plan going.


Don't forget that X3 was considered a critical failure, even if it did make money. In fact, the initial X-trilogy looked pretty stale even a few years on. It's all Wolverine, Wolverine, Wolverine, because they never did those characters the right way. It took Vaughn's First Class to get things rolling again. Of course, there's the Jackman = Downey equation. These guys are overemphasized in their respective film universes in order to maintain the interest of Average Broseph Ticketbuyer.

Monker wrote:Why should they allow these other companies earn so much money off of what were their original creations and not do anything themselves?


Because they sold the movie rights, that's why. It wasn't until somebody realized that different studios holding the rights to different characters wasn't cool because then you couldn't show Mr. Fantastic jacking off Hulk while he was in mid-leap that they shifted gears. (By the way, that joke was free.)

Monker wrote:They are absolutely NOT copying what DC did with Batman...Bruce Wayne isn't even comparable in character to Tony Stark....they are completely different. The only similarities are they are both rich and wear a superhero suit.


If you want to get technical, Iron Man first appeared in 1963. Tony Stark's a billionaire playboy who builds tech to fight bad guys. Later it was shown that his parents were murdered. Stan Lee ripped off Batman? Nahhhhhh! :lol:

Monker wrote:I will never believe the "genre" of superhero movies win with BOTH DC (and x-men, and fantastic four, and whatever) and Marvel releasing three or more movies per year. An inevitable bubble will form and pop and everybody will lose. And, since DC isn't giving people time to be invested emotionally in their characters, they will be hit hardest.


That will likely change in 2016.

Monker wrote:Of course people are getting fatigued of the same old same from Marvel. That is why dramatic events like deaths must happen. I told you it is the PERFECT time for those things to happen. The audience is set up for it RIGHT NOW. Marvel knows what they are doing.


Sorry, your "heroes must suffer" concept didn't surface in Age of Ultron. Or it did, but just barely. They took the one character they could toss (and it's obvious why), and none of the principals. It's the same reason The Walking Dead cable show won't kill Rick Grimes or Daryl Dixon or Karl Grimes or Michonne or Carol.

People are beginning to feel Marvel fatigue because apart from the two Captain America movies, they're remarkably similar in tone and strategy. Too many dumb one-liners, too. That actually makes Captain America's conservative nature, which stands in "stark" contrast to many of the other characters, rather refreshing.
"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 » Thu May 07, 2015 4:44 am

Monker wrote:You still come off as angry, or at least jealous. But, whatever.


Negative. I'm getting exactly what I want as a fan :lol: I want DC to be everything Marvel is not, and that's what we're getting (thank God.) To be honest, I've been having the most fun as I've ever had with these movies. I really didn't think this was all possible after Superman Returns and especially Green Lantern. Most of my sarcastic posts and "anger" comes from trolls and baiters and soaking in that at a constant around the internet (the trolls on MR are lightweight compared to the other sites where fanboy wars come at the hundreds, not from 2-3 people.)

DC is finally in the game when it comes to a Cinamatic Universe and that's all I can ask for as a fan of their superhero's. All the other stuff is fluff and the simple fact that I love the back and forth. Regardless, it's a great time. Trolls are easy to figure out.

Who cares what a few hundred vocal people on the internet think? You?


Nope. But apparently Joss Whedon and James Gunn do, though.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Thu May 07, 2015 5:23 am

YoungJRNYfan wrote:
Who cares what a few hundred vocal people on the internet think? You?


Nope. But apparently Joss Whedon and James Gunn do, though.


DING! Oh, snap! :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 » Thu May 07, 2015 6:54 am

verslibre wrote:
YoungJRNYfan wrote:
Who cares what a few hundred vocal people on the internet think? You?


Nope. But apparently Joss Whedon and James Gunn do, though.


DING! Oh, snap! :lol:




Image

^Sorry if that gif is too PG-13 for this thread.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Thu May 07, 2015 7:14 am

: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 verslibre » Thu May 07, 2015 10:30 am

Yowza, the forums on IMDb are brimming with negative feedback re: AoU right now. And not by comics fans or DC fans or shills. Just people that like (most of the other) Marvel/superhero films.

As much as I'd like to defend the movie, because it's an enjoyable popcorn fest, and I do like the cast, the criticism is deserved because of how Ultron was mishandled plus the third-as-yet foray into staging a battle with a bunch of metallic guys zipping around in the air.

I merely hope Civil War keeps up the level of quality of the first two Cap films.
"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 » Fri May 08, 2015 4:02 am

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:The simple fact is the Spiderman movie from back in 2002, or whenever, is what first proved how popular a comic franchise could be.


I could've sworn it was Batman. There were four Batman films before the Nolan trilogy


That's not what you pointed to in your original post.

and only three Spider-Man films before the reboot — and now it is being rebooted AGAIN, and fewer people give a shit about one of the best characters out there. But getting back to Batman, Burton's movie was regarded a triumph, with hype up the wazoo and lines of people around theaters. I know, because I was in one of those lines. It wasn't till BatClooney where I didn't bother seeing a Batman film in the theater. (In fact, I dozed off during that piece o' shit in front of the TV.)


That's not even close to my point. The 2002 Spiderman was one of the most popular movies of all time. It grossed nearly twice as much as 1989 Batman movie. In fact, I would bet the reboot Spiderman grossed more than the 1989 Batman. That FACT and the X-Men being successful, IMO, is what convinced Marvel to get into the game.
'
Monker wrote:That combined with the X-Men movies is probably what got the Marvel plan going.


Don't forget that X3 was considered a critical failure, even if it did make money.


So what. Marvel saw their characters on the big screen and being successful, especially Spiderman.

[quiote]
Monker wrote:Why should they allow these other companies earn so much money off of what were their original creations and not do anything themselves?


Because they sold the movie rights, that's why. It wasn't until somebody realized that different studios holding the rights to different characters wasn't cool because then you couldn't show Mr. Fantastic jacking off Hulk while he was in mid-leap that they shifted gears. (By the way, that joke was free.)[/quote]

That is exactly my point. They saw huge profits being made by Spiderman, and they got in the game - in a HUGE way.

Monker wrote:I will never believe the "genre" of superhero movies win with BOTH DC (and x-men, and fantastic four, and whatever) and Marvel releasing three or more movies per year. An inevitable bubble will form and pop and everybody will lose. And, since DC isn't giving people time to be invested emotionally in their characters, they will be hit hardest.


That will likely change in 2016.


I doubt it...because that is when the number of these movies is going to double...and sometime in 2017 the public will be getting tired of it.

Monker wrote:Of course people are getting fatigued of the same old same from Marvel. That is why dramatic events like deaths must happen. I told you it is the PERFECT time for those things to happen. The audience is set up for it RIGHT NOW. Marvel knows what they are doing.


Sorry, your "heroes must suffer" concept didn't surface in Age of Ultron. Or it did, but just barely.


Well, spoilers and such.

But, Qucksilver died. Black Widow had to betray Bruce. The Hulk exiled himself because he was betrayed. Stark has to deal with his vision of leading the Avengers to ruin, and leading them to deal with Ultron. JARVIS "died". There was plenty there...you just don't want to see it.

They took the one character they could toss (and it's obvious why), and none of the principals. It's the same reason The Walking Dead cable show won't kill Rick Grimes or Daryl Dixon or Karl Grimes or Michonne or Carol.


Well, spoilers and such again. Captain America will die in Civil War. Hulk, as I said, is in exile. Thor has Ragnorak coming and may die. And, IMO, Iron Man will probably hang up the suit after Civil War.

So, your theory of not letting the principles go is flat out wrong.

And, the TV zombie drama is another bubble that I hope bursts soon.

People are beginning to feel Marvel fatigue because apart from the two Captain America movies, they're remarkably similar in tone and strategy. Too many dumb one-liners, too. That actually makes Captain America's conservative nature, which stands in "stark" contrast to many of the other characters, rather refreshing.


You read too many comic boot/movie forums and give too much credit to those few hundred people.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9392
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Fri May 08, 2015 5:33 am

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote:The simple fact is the Spiderman movie from back in 2002, or whenever, is what first proved how popular a comic franchise could be.


I could've sworn it was Batman. There were four Batman films before the Nolan trilogy


That's not what you pointed to in your original post.


First/second wave. Better?

Monker wrote:That's not even close to my point. The 2002 Spiderman was one of the most popular movies of all time. It grossed nearly twice as much as 1989 Batman movie. In fact, I would bet the reboot Spiderman grossed more than the 1989 Batman. That FACT and the X-Men being successful, IMO, is what convinced Marvel to get into the game.


Indeed, Spider-Man did (Nolan's trilogy is another story). Spidey has always been Marvel's most popular superhero, at least until 2008. The X-movies have done well, but the first two didn't do as well as you think. In fact, get ready for this: the 1989 Batman movie has, to date, grossed more domestically AND worldwide than the first X-Men (a mediocre film, IMO – Singer's overrated). The hype for X-movies wasn't too extensive until X3, but it's really "Wolverine & Friends."
'
Monker wrote:So what. Marvel saw their characters on the big screen and being successful, especially Spiderman.


The mystery remains why they didn't see them onscreen and successful many years earlier. From the late '70s through the 2000s, it was DC's show.

Monker wrote:That is exactly my point. They saw huge profits being made by Spiderman, and they got in the game - in a HUGE way.


Except 2008 = MCU and anything before it is not, unless a lot of legal bullshit is smoothed out, simply because they leased out the rights to Captain Foreskin to Richard Cranium Studios and whoever else. :lol:

Monker wrote:I doubt it...because that is when the number of these movies is going to double...and sometime in 2017 the public will be getting tired of it.


Oh, you mean then, when WB has more movies out, and not now, when people are complaining Joss recycled the Chitauri battle for AoU? Man, you ARE a Whedonite.

Monker wrote:
Sorry, your "heroes must suffer" concept didn't surface in Age of Ultron. Or it did, but just barely.


Well, spoilers and such.

But, Qucksilver died. Black Widow had to betray Bruce. The Hulk exiled himself because he was betrayed. Stark has to deal with his vision of leading the Avengers to ruin, and leading them to deal with Ultron. JARVIS "died". There was plenty there...you just don't want to see it.


Like I said, Quicksilver was the throwaway. There's the X-version of him in DoFP, who's not dead. He was used like a redshirt ("You didn't see that coming?"). Banner doesn't trust the Hulk version of himself, that's why he's disappeared again, not because Natasha "betrayed" him. Jarvis = Vision. (What, you didn't notice "Victoria" and "Jocasta," etc.?) Stark returned with a full arsenal with no recap of what he did after he trashed all his armors at the end of Iron Man 3, i.e. that stupid "clean slate" maneuver. And again, Ultron was a lame-o Doctor Who/Star Wars castoff with stupid dialogue. Want to see how Ultron should have been used? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2_-Ar-LTeYk

Monker wrote:
They took the one character they could toss (and it's obvious why), and none of the principals. It's the same reason The Walking Dead cable show won't kill Rick Grimes or Daryl Dixon or Karl Grimes or Michonne or Carol.


Well, spoilers and such again. Captain America will die in Civil War. Hulk, as I said, is in exile. Thor has Ragnorak coming and may die. And, IMO, Iron Man will probably hang up the suit after Civil War.

So, your theory of not letting the principles go is flat out wrong.


It's principals, and your concept of "wrong" is a subjective one. I'm sticking to my opinion they're rushing into the events of Civil War and Ragnarok, which they will attempt to depict in the space of ONE movie each. There's a good chance they may fuck these up.

Monker wrote: nd, the TV zombie drama is another bubble that I hope bursts soon.


Each season premiere of The Walking Dead beats the one before it. Each season finale beats the one before it. "Soon"? Not likely. Eventually? Sure, it'll quiet down. Even SyFy got into the game with Z Nation, though (cool show, for what it is). Why do you care, anyway? There's plenty of content. With DVR, it's not like you have to wait an hour to see your favorite show, unless rabbit ears still dictate what you get to watch.

Monker wrote:You read too many comic boot/movie forums and give too much credit to those few hundred people.


And you don't read, period. See my remarks re: IMDb in my post directly above. Those are general moviegoers that post there. Also, I read and post on TWO comics forums. One has a membership of 37,000, the other has a membership right around 50,000. "A few hundred," huh? :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 » Sat May 09, 2015 9:59 am

verslibre wrote:Indeed, Spider-Man did (Nolan's trilogy is another story). Spidey has always been Marvel's most popular superhero, at least until 2008.


Exactly...and that most popular character was not able to generate any $'s for Marvel via cinema. By 2008, Marvel had already started getting into the game.

The X-movies have done well, but the first two didn't do as well as you think. In fact, get ready for this: the 1989 Batman movie has, to date, grossed more domestically AND worldwide than the first X-Men (a mediocre film, IMO – Singer's overrated). The hype for X-movies wasn't too extensive until X3, but it's really "Wolverine & Friends."
'
My point is, they see Spiderman making HUGE money. They see X-Men out there as well. Even Fantastic Four was released during that time. Marvel sees all these movies out there, with Spiderman being the biggest comic book movie EVER. So, why not get into the game and do it right and take back their brand and make a huge profit in the process?

I doubt very, very much that Marvel looked at Dark Knight and that is what got them moving. They seem the types who do their own thing and don't wait for a leader to follow.

[qquote]
Monker wrote:So what. Marvel saw their characters on the big screen and being successful, especially Spiderman.


The mystery remains why they didn't see them onscreen and successful many years earlier. From the late '70s through the 2000s, it was DC's show.


I doubt they cared. . The late 70's through the 20000's really only had the Superman films as huge blockbusters...and they still were not competitive with Star Wars and Indiana Jones and such. I doubt they saw cinema as something worth pursuing in such a big way.

Monker wrote:That is exactly my point. They saw huge profits being made by Spiderman, and they got in the game - in a HUGE way.


Except 2008 = MCU and anything before it is not, unless a lot of legal bullshit is smoothed out, simply because they leased out the rights to Captain Foreskin to Richard Cranium Studios and whoever else. :lol:


And, again, that is exxactly my point. Prior to 2008, they made nothing directly from these movies. Then Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and then suddenly they start producing their own films from their own movie studio...and then Disney buys them and it seems they have almost unlimited potential resources. I will not be surprised if they get XMen and Fantastic 4 back as well, at some point in the distant future.

Oh, you mean then, when WB has more movies out, and not now, when people are complaining Joss recycled the Chitauri battle for AoU? Man, you ARE a Whedonite.


The only people whining are comic book nerds.

[/quote]
Like I said, Quicksilver was the throwaway. There's the X-version of him in DoFP, who's not dead. He was used like a redshirt ("You didn't see that coming?"). [/quote]

First, the X-Men universe is irrelevant to Marvel's. So, what they do with Quicksilver in Avengers is not dependent on X-Men,

Scarlet Witch suffered the death of her brother. Sure, you can argue that is the only reason Quicksilver was in the movie...but the fact still remains that she suffered and suddenly her full potential powers are truly revealed.

Banner doesn't trust the Hulk version of himself, that's why he's disappeared again, not because Natasha "betrayed" him.


Then that is a spoiler because that is not what I saw in the movie. What I saw was Bruce wanting to leave with Natasha and her intentionally proking the Hulk, because she "needed him"...and then he goes into exile. Which, BTW, IMO, is the entire point of having the "love story" in the first place...because Natasha has to suffer the pain of knowing she broke his trust, broke his heart, etc...as we saw towards the end when she is searching for him.

Jarvis = Vision. (What, you didn't notice "Victoria" and "Jocasta," etc.?)


Not the point. When Ultron was first discovered, he told them he had to kill someone. Stark revealed that it was JARVIS. So, they ALL suffered that loss. And, again, you don't understand the point of heroes suffering. The ultimate suffering is dying...and the ultimate hero is one who has died and has been resurrected. That is why Vision now seems to be "above" the others. The entire point of carrying Thor's hammer proves this. In Greek myth, they would symbolize this by sending the hero to Tartarus, or Hades, or across the river Styx in some way. Perseus, Odysseus, Hercules...all did this. it symbolizes dying, going to the "afterlife", and coming back. And, of course, their is Jesus.

Ultron was a lame-o Doctor Who/Star Wars castoff with stupid dialogue. Want to see how Ultron should have been used? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2_-Ar-LTeYk


Read up on how these things work. Essentially, Ultron was the equivelent of Saruman, or Darth Vader...when the REAL confrontation is with Sauron or the Emperor....or Thanos.

Marvel is following myth building in an incredibly accurate way.

I'm sticking to my opinion they're rushing into the events of Civil War and Ragnarok, which they will attempt to depict in the space of ONE movie each. There's a good chance they may fuck these up.


Of course someone who wants them to follow the comics point by point is going to say they fucked it up.

In the real world of myth building and drama. Civil War will see Captain America die. Ragnorok will see Thor die, or at least his world destroyed. See points above about ultimate heroes dying and being reborn. Hulk is in exile. IMO, Iron Man will hang up his suit after Civil War. At that point, after Civil War and Ragnorok, these four will be at the point of ultimate suffering and will probably not be in the first Infinity War movie....or have only limited roles. But, they will be resurrected in part 2...and be even more powerful.

Each season premiere of The Walking Dead beats the one before it. Each season finale beats the one before it. "Soon"? Not likely. Eventually? Sure, it'll quiet down. Even SyFy got into the game with Z Nation, though (cool show, for what it is). Why do you care, anyway? There's plenty of content. With DVR, it's not like you have to wait an hour to see your favorite show, unless rabbit ears still dictate what you get to watch.


SyFy actually has 2 "zombie" shows...Helix is essentially a zombie show. I watched the first season and didn't start the second.

I care because instead of wasting resources on lame zombie shows, these networks could be investing in REAL quality scifi shows.

And you don't read, period. See my remarks re: IMDb in my post directly above. Those are general moviegoers that post there. Also, I read and post on TWO comics forums. One has a membership of 37,000, the other has a membership right around 50,000. "A few hundred," huh? :lol:


I went to IMDB and it looks like a bunch of trolls to me.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think 50,000 people are POSTING to that forum. In a forum like that, I bet the active users are close to 5%, probably a lot less. Even on MR.com, there are probably less then 100 active users on these forums...but I bet the number of subscribed users is well over 2000, which is where the less than %5 would predict it.

In short, yes, saying "hundreds" of users on those forums is a VERY accurate statement....the numbers you posted actually prove that to me.
User avatar
Monker
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 9392
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm
Location: Des Moines, Iowa

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sat May 09, 2015 11:39 am

Monker wrote:My point is, they see Spiderman making HUGE money. They see X-Men out there as well. Even Fantastic Four was released during that time. Marvel sees all these movies out there, with Spiderman being the biggest comic book movie EVER. So, why not get into the game and do it right and take back their brand and make a huge profit in the process?

I doubt very, very much that Marvel looked at Dark Knight and that is what got them moving. They seem the types who do their own thing and don't wait for a leader to follow.


Batman Begins predates The Dark Knight, which appeared the same year as Iron Man. Got it? In 1989, Batman opened and instantly became a franchise-launching success. It was the Iron Man of '89, for Warner. I'd like to see you see go up to Stan Lee himself and ask him if he'd have liked to see Marvel heroes on the big screen sooner than '99, when X-Men appeared, since Superman and Batman were up there for 10-20+ years sooner. What do YOU think his answer will be?

Monker wrote:I doubt they cared. . The late 70's through the 20000's really only had the Superman films as huge blockbusters...and they still were not competitive with Star Wars and Indiana Jones and such. I doubt they saw cinema as something worth pursuing in such a big way.


Hahahaha! You crack me up. See my comment above. Batman in '89 was mondo. Lines wrapped around theaters mondo. I saw it firsthand.

Monker wrote:And, again, that is exxactly my point. Prior to 2008, they made nothing directly from these movies. Then Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and then suddenly they start producing their own films from their own movie studio...and then Disney buys them and it seems they have almost unlimited potential resources. I will not be surprised if they get XMen and Fantastic 4 back as well, at some point in the distant future.


Yeah, we all already know this. You're regurgitating data to extend some kind of faux-argument. They cannot buy those rights back as long as Sony and Fox keep making movies, which is exactly why they're rebooting Spider-Man yet again. They can "borrow" the film rights to certain characters, which again, will cost money. Want proof? Mark Ruffalo said Universal still holds the rights to the Incredible Hulk, which is why no more solo Hulk films will happen.

Monker wrote:The only people whining are comic book nerds.


What have we here? A nerd calling other people nerds. Ho. Lee. Shit. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Monker wrote:First, the X-Men universe is irrelevant to Marvel's. So, what they do with Quicksilver in Avengers is not dependent on X-Men,


Irrelevant, storywise, but not for practical purposes. That's why he became cannon fodder (provided we overlook how he can zip around laser bolts and can attempt to grab Mjolnir, but then gets killed by automatic gunfire). First, Marvel has to tiptoe around the whole mutant theme because Fox owns the rights to "mutants" and they can't use that word, which is why they use ambiguous terms like "miracles" and "enhanced" to describe characters who are mutants in their comic incarnations. Just today, Marvel has officially declared Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are not 'mutants'.

Monker wrote:Scarlet Witch suffered the death of her brother. Sure, you can argue that is the only reason Quicksilver was in the movie...but the fact still remains that she suffered and suddenly her full potential powers are truly revealed.


Like I said, practical.

Monker wrote:
verslibre wrote:Banner doesn't trust the Hulk version of himself, that's why he's disappeared again, not because Natasha "betrayed" him.


Then that is a spoiler because that is not what I saw in the movie. What I saw was Bruce wanting to leave with Natasha and her intentionally proking the Hulk, because she "needed him"...and then he goes into exile. Which, BTW, IMO, is the entire point of having the "love story" in the first place...because Natasha has to suffer the pain of knowing she broke his trust, broke his heart, etc...as we saw towards the end when she is searching for him.


The Banner-Romanoff romantic subplot was so forced, it's hysterical. They must have laughed when they wrote that in on their truck-sized Dry-Erase board in the conference room at Disney. You can use that as the reason/excuse if you want, but it would have made more sense for him to just bail since, naturally, every time he Hulks out, shit happens for better or for worse. I was too busy wincing over how Ultron was written to be too much like the AntiStark.

Monker wrote:
Jarvis = Vision. (What, you didn't notice "Victoria" and "Jocasta," etc.?)


Not the point. When Ultron was first discovered, he told them he had to kill someone. Stark revealed that it was JARVIS. So, they ALL suffered that loss. And, again, you don't understand the point of heroes suffering. The ultimate suffering is dying...and the ultimate hero is one who has died and has been resurrected. That is why Vision now seems to be "above" the others. The entire point of carrying Thor's hammer proves this. In Greek myth, they would symbolize this by sending the hero to Tartarus, or Hades, or across the river Styx in some way. Perseus, Odysseus, Hercules...all did this. it symbolizes dying, going to the "afterlife", and coming back. And, of course, their is Jesus.


They didn't all "suffer" to the extent that you imply over Jarvis. Steve Rogers certainly didn't. Remember, he comes from a different time. Neither did Romanoff, Thor or Rhodes. Thor simply returned after a cryptic scene (that everyone has complained about) in the first of the film's two deus ex machinas, zapping the Vision's body to life because he had a "vision." :lol:

Monker wrote:
Ultron was a lame-o Doctor Who/Star Wars castoff with stupid dialogue. Want to see how Ultron should have been used? Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2_-Ar-LTeYk


Read up on how these things work. Essentially, Ultron was the equivelent of Saruman, or Darth Vader...when the REAL confrontation is with Sauron or the Emperor....or Thanos.


Don't worry about me, Captain Obvious. And since you like to point how tomatoes = ketchup ad nauseum, I'll add that Marvel movies should and must imbue their villains with more gravitas and cease making every single one of them a mere stepping stone to Thanos. Ultron should have been a massive foe to contend with. He should have bordered on undefeatable. Akin to Zod. The "suffering" you keep underlining with your laser pointer was there only in the most marginal sense of the word, with one exception.

Monker wrote:Marvel is following myth building in an incredibly accurate way.


You mean formulaic.

Monker wrote:
I'm sticking to my opinion they're rushing into the events of Civil War and Ragnarok, which they will attempt to depict in the space of ONE movie each. There's a good chance they may fuck these up.


Of course someone who wants them to follow the comics point by point is going to say they fucked it up.


As I said, not only comics fans are complaining, but I can see that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

Monker wrote:In the real world of myth building and drama. Civil War will see Captain America die. Ragnorok will see Thor die, or at least his world destroyed. See points above about ultimate heroes dying and being reborn. Hulk is in exile. IMO, Iron Man will hang up his suit after Civil War. At that point, after Civil War and Ragnorok, these four will be at the point of ultimate suffering and will probably not be in the first Infinity War movie....or have only limited roles. But, they will be resurrected in part 2...and be even more powerful.


We already know this. I read the stories they're adapting. You love to repeat yourself, I guess.

Maybe you don't get it, because a) you are a Whedonite, and b) you're too busy trying to sound intelligent, well-read, philosophical, and all that jazz instead of being real, but in case you didn't notice, Age of Ultron follows the same damned scheme as Avengers almost to a fucking tee. It's like Joss laid out every major beat and replicated it: Thor has a beef with Stark; Hulk is suddenly loosed and shit hits the fan; a death; carefully choreographed battle with drones/soldiers when really there are so freakin' many, it's not like Hawkeye/Cap/Widow wouldn't eat it in two minutes; farm sequence = Helicarrier sequence; Fury shows up to dish out some tough love, and so on.

Oh, yeah, Joss used the tracking shot again, this time in the beginning. I didn't like how the opening was choreographed. Joss' forte is the teevee medium. The first Avengers is a cool flick but he didn't have that many tricks to begin with. OTOH, the writers of TWS are on hand for Infinity War, along with the Russos, so I have much more confidence in those movies. Now the ones need good directors and writers are Thor 3 (fingers crossed) and Black Panther. Dr. Strange has a good director attached.

Monker wrote:
Each season premiere of The Walking Dead beats the one before it. Each season finale beats the one before it. "Soon"? Not likely. Eventually? Sure, it'll quiet down. Even SyFy got into the game with Z Nation, though (cool show, for what it is). Why do you care, anyway? There's plenty of content. With DVR, it's not like you have to wait an hour to see your favorite show, unless rabbit ears still dictate what you get to watch.


SyFy actually has 2 "zombie" shows...Helix is essentially a zombie show. I watched the first season and didn't start the second.


Nope. Helix is not a "zombie" show. Ron Moore himself said it's not a "zombie" show. It's an outbreak drama. The first season was good. Haven't had time to watch the second one, so I've no idea if it kept up the level of quality. Good cast, though.

Monker wrote:I care because instead of wasting resources on lame zombie shows, these networks could be investing in REAL quality scifi shows.


Everybody says shit like that. There was a letter written to the LA Times by a complainer who said CBM movies are the reasons "intelligent adult comedies" are seldom made for the big screen nowadays. I say deal with it. It's not like there isn't an abundance of that stuff on cable.

Monker wrote:
And you don't read, period. See my remarks re: IMDb in my post directly above. Those are general moviegoers that post there. Also, I read and post on TWO comics forums. One has a membership of 37,000, the other has a membership right around 50,000. "A few hundred," huh? :lol:


I went to IMDB and it looks like a bunch of trolls to me.


"They don't agree with me!"

Monker wrote:You are living in a fantasy world if you think 50,000 people are POSTING to that forum. In a forum like that, I bet the active users are close to 5%, probably a lot less. Even on MR.com, there are probably less then 100 active users on these forums...but I bet the number of subscribed users is well over 2000, which is where the less than %5 would predict it.


Only 5%? Ask Trav's opinion. He's there, too. I remember him mentioning about how posts are "500 deep" as soon as news hits the forum about ____ (etc.). That's a FAR cry from this place, no disrespect intended. You don't like what you see on IMDb, but posting activity there is also nonstop, especially when a movie is new.
"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 » Sat May 09, 2015 4:28 pm

:lol:

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 The_Noble_Cause » Sun May 10, 2015 1:49 am

Saw Avengers 2 last night. Easily the worst Marvel movie since Iron Man 2 or 3. Just a discombobulated mess. Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were lame and had the phoniest Eastern European accents this side of Boris & Natasha. The script suffers from a "too many cooks in the kitchen" approach, and the action scenes feature poorly rendered CGI and uninspired set pieces that must have been farmed out to second unit. And even for a comic book movie, AOU features a record amount of dialogue devoted to meaningless technobabble. And when technobabble doesn't quite do the trick, Whedon inserts a montage of Stark and Banner solving equations on a chalkboard, adjusting their glasses while wearing labcoats or cuts to a CGI grid of digital pixels to represent consciousness of AI...what a bunch of dopey bullshit. And the climax...whew boy...didn't Superman Returns already prove that floating land masses make for the most inert unexciting action scenes ever? Man, this was one bad and bloated sequel. Joss did the right thing by stepping away.

Best scenes: The opener at Hydra castle outpost. The Avengers taking turns trying to lift Thor's hammer. Stark vs. Hulk.
Worst: Everything else.
"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 YoungJRNYfan » Sun May 10, 2015 2:46 am

verslibre wrote:
Monker wrote: Only 5%? Ask Trav's opinion. He's there, too. I remember him mentioning about how posts are "500 deep" as soon as news hits the forum about ____ (etc.). That's a FAR cry from this place, no disrespect intended. You don't like what you see on IMDb, but posting activity there is also nonstop, especially when a movie is new.


When the Batman V Superman trailer hit, pages were flying by so fast that it was damn near impossible to keep up with a single page. Moderator's were closing threads down every 20 minutes and starting on another part since the servers couldn't keep up with the amount of posts that is allowed in one thread. Right now, the "All Things Batman and Superman" thread is on "Part 165."

That's not counting the new users. Since the BvS hit, there has been new users out the ass signing up and participating in the forums.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby verslibre » Sun May 10, 2015 3:13 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:Best scenes: The opener at Hydra castle outpost. The Avengers taking turns trying to lift Thor's hammer. Stark vs. Hulk.
Worst: Everything else.


Wasn't impressed by the opening (featuring "Return of 'Tracking Shot'"), but the party and the Hulkbuster battle are easily two of the best scenes, and big chunks of those were showcased last year in the earliest previews. Marvel released so much stinkin' footage from this movie (which I avoided) in advance, all the way up till 48-72 hours before it hit theaters here, it made me wonder if they felt enough people weren't interested. Or something.

It's funny that some Marvel actors have engaged in majorly anti-DC sentimentalizing, but the color palette in some scenes reminded me more of Nolan and Snyder, and they went out of their way to cut one of the full trailers to make the subject matter look darker than it really is, as they did with Iron Man 3.

For the record, I think the floating island climax was Joss trying to cop or match Man of Steel's World Engine. The deus ex machina rescue and the little stunt with the dog were also jabs.
"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 May 10, 2015 10:00 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:The script suffers from a "too many cooks in the kitchen" approach, Man, this was one bad and bloated sequel.


It seems it's only going to get worse with Civil War:


Captain America: Civil War Adds Even More Actors to Its Cast


https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/captain-amer ... 15713.html


But like v has been saying, hopefully the Russo's can bring more of the CA:WS appeal to it with breathtaking action sequences and superior fight scenes, not to mention a villain that doesn't crack more jokes than the newest Roast episode on Comedy Central. I think the next phase is in good hands if the Russo's can juggle the ever-so-growing new cast members that's only going to get bigger and bigger.
User avatar
YoungJRNYfan
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Marvel Movie thread

Postby RedWingFan » Tue May 12, 2015 2:02 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote: The script suffers from a "too many cooks in the kitchen" approach
You didn't like the Vision character? I thought they did a pretty good job with him. The accents were pretty bad, don't know how you really avoid that other than hiring actors from that region. This film had to overlap the heros before weeding some out (presumably). there were a couple of sequences in the opening scene that reminded me of the had cgi in MOS in the ihop or dennys or whatever it was. Thought the cgi after that was fine.
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: 7674
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

PreviousNext

Return to Death By Stereo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests