Moderator: Andrew
Monker wrote:
And, what film is #1?
Monker wrote:I thought it was every bit as good as the first movie.
Monker wrote:How many superheroes does it take to defeat Thanos? I guess we'll eventually find out.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
verslibre wrote:Monker wrote:
And, what film is #1?
What rhymes with "no competition"?
RedWingFan wrote: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
RedWingFan wrote:Lol... You get angrier and angrier with each quality successful Marvel film. 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).
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"
YoungJRNYfan wrote:RedWingFan wrote:Lol... You get angrier and angrier with each quality successful Marvel film. 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).
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.
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.
Monker wrote:That combined with the X-Men movies is probably what got the Marvel plan going.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Monker wrote:You still come off as angry, or at least jealous. But, whatever.
Who cares what a few hundred vocal people on the internet think? You?
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.
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!
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Monker wrote:So what. Marvel saw their characters on the big screen and being successful, especially Spiderman.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monker wrote: nd, the TV zombie drama is another bubble that I hope bursts soon.
Monker wrote:You read too many comic boot/movie forums and give too much credit to those few hundred people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.?)
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Monker wrote:The only people whining are comic book nerds.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monker wrote:Marvel is following myth building in an incredibly accurate way.
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.
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.
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.
Monker wrote:I care because instead of wasting resources on lame zombie shows, these networks could be investing in REAL quality scifi shows.
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?
I went to IMDB and it looks like a bunch of trolls to 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.
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.
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.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:The script suffers from a "too many cooks in the kitchen" approach, Man, this was one bad and bloated sequel.
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.The_Noble_Cause wrote: The script suffers from a "too many cooks in the kitchen" approach
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
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests