Movie Thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Serge 13, Nov 20, 2011.

  1. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    Sadly, in America, you don't even have to BE the racial recipient to spout out "racism" accusations. That's why I make those jokes; to point out its absurdity.

    It's like, if the person a comment is directed towards doesn't find any offense in it, why is it someone else's duty to assign a level of bigotry to that comment? Like that video (fucking hilarious, by the way XD) above, if the black guys Louis C.K. is addressing aren't getting offended by his pale-faced usage of the term "nigger", then why should some WASP with a stick up her ass get all uppity about it and complain that he's being racist?

    Taken to its extreme, which is where I find the most joy, you can just call ANYTHING "racist", and it works equally well. At least my use is funny...

    Speaking of funny racism, so apparently Hungary is trying to build a wall to keep all the Muslims out? What, do they just think that Muslims aren't as tenacious as Mexicans? Eh? Eh? =D
     
  2. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Level 27 Wizard Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    I watched Ant-Man. I liked it a lot. It was a really fun movie. The visual effects were perfect - like ripping the characters and scenes right out of the comics. Some people might think it is funnier than Guardians of the Galaxy, but humor does vary. I thought it was as funny. I liked the villain more than I thought I would. He did some seriously nasty shit. One thing in particular you will know when you see it.

    A lot of interesting things are introduced in this movie, like Hank Pym's interactions with SHIELD and Stark. Michael Douglas really sold me on Pym. Dude is a legend. A certain Avenger cameo really stole the show imo. The two after credit stingers were not totally unexpected (for me anyway), but they set things up perfectly for Captain America: Civil War, which at this point is Avengers 2.5.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2015
  3. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    Let's be honest. You were going into that film expecting to like it. =)

    (Tired, so rather out-of-character of me, I'll have to bow out before having much to say...)
     
  4. Stone Cold Robert House

    Stone Cold Robert House Mojave Rattlesnake

    157
    Jul 6, 2015
    I haven't seen Ant-Man yet, and unless I go watch as part of a date it's unlikely I actually go see it in the theater (which would be a first for Marvel movies). Funny things is, Ant-Man is actually my favorite Avengers... but they decided to portray my least favorite version of the character, and give the movie a completely different focus and tone than I expected, at least going by the trailers and every promotional material. I'll make sure to catch it when it comes out on Blu-Ray.
     
  5. UniversalWolf

    UniversalWolf eaten by a grue.

    Aug 28, 2005
    I remember once a long time ago I saw a sketch from a British comedy show about a Norwegian spraypaint factory. I don't know which show it was, but it must have been from the late 1960s or early 1970s. It wasn't Monty Python, but John Cleese was in it. Anyway, John Cleese had a can of red spraypaint which he used to spray all the other cans coming down the line red. When his can was empty, he picked up another can off the line and continued spraying the rest of the cans red. Now that's boring!

    I saw a surprisingly good noir from 1946: The Strange Love of Martha Ivers. Pretty unusual movie. Very different from the standard detective type stuff. It's definitely worth watching for the sense of paranoia and corruption it gives. I also wasn't sure how it was going to end until the end, which was good.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038988/
     
  6. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    I saw more and more footage of BVS and Suicide Squad, and I'm liking them less and less as I see more and more. Seeing that the dumbass Joker was indeed NOT a joke and really how he's going to be portrayed in SS was just a huuuuuuuuuuuge disappointment. Worse, those absurd crowns on his teeth make Jared Leto's performance of the character SOUND worse. Jonah Hill spent a long time wearing veneers so he could get accustomed to them and so he wouldn't sound like an idiot when he had them in the film, but it sounded like Jared Leto spent ZERO time getting accustomed to his portrayal of the Joker. Then, the "Frank Miller inspired" Batman? Ugh..... It sadly SHOWS. All of these things, in both films, look like they're being gritty and dark and grungy for the SAKE of being gritty and dark and grungy. Say what you will about Nolan's films, there was a purpose behind their particular aesthetic, that while they may have seriously clashed with the source material, they still made this interpretation of Batman more BELIEVABLE. But BVS and SS look like they're going to be crap, because their adherence to the grime is superficial and lacks that all-important purpose.

    I forgave Heath Ledger's Joker for not having bleached skin and for his "smile" being nothing more than lipstick and scars and for his hair being sloppily spray painted green on a clearly brunette person, because his CHARACTER was so charismatic and believable and entertaining. The "darkness" of the character wasn't being fixated on for the sake of darkness, but rather the character was focused on for the sake of believability. To that end, when the fake hospital's explosives didn't go off in time, Ledger stayed in character and acted like it was actually the Joker's detonator maybe malfunctioning, and it was brilliant in the film, yet totally adlibbed, because they only had 1 take that they could do. He dedicated his performance to the character, and THAT'S why his Joker being a "different" Joker worked. Leto's? I will reserve absolute judgement for when the film is actually released, but my expectations are getting lower and lower with each passing day.
     
  7. Courier

    Courier Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Orderite

    Apr 10, 2011
    The failure of the Arnold Batman movie and the success of the Nolan movies seem to have given DC's film producers and directors the idea that audiences want grittiness. Really though they should be learning from Marvel and realize that if anything it's the opposite these days. Superman especially is a character that just doesn't work divorced from fun and idealism.

    But yeah both movies look like shit so far. I'm gonna go see Ant-man cause I heard it was good but I think I'll skip those two.
     
  8. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    I think that Bats vs Supes looks better than any of Nolan's films, at least they don't look ashamed of being superhero movies. I jsut hope they aren't as pretentious and "realistic = Dull" as the Nolan Movies. I mean, they completely destroyed Bane and Ra's Al Ghoul.

    Suicide Squad looks like shit. I Hope we find out that Joker is an impostor and gets shot at the end of the movie by the Actual Joker.
    So far the movies have had some rather shitty jokers, from the botched Surgery Jack Nicholson, to Clown Kobain now to Little Wayne..... Why can't they take a page out of the Arkham games? There are other actors that look more like the Joker than any of the guys they have been choosing to play him....
     
  9. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    No, they just look ashamed of having any sense of respect for the audience. The Nolan films respected the audience, even if they didn't respect the source material. No, Bane wasn't the awesome antithesis to Batman that was his intellectual equal but philosophical opposite and physical superior, but the overall story and its arcs and turns weren't so ham-fisted and overly explained to the audience to indicate that the films thought they were stupid. Watching a character break down and snap didn't have to be EXPLAINED to the audience, the films understood that the audience understood what they were watching. So what if that Two Face was made in a gasoline explosion setup by the Joker and not by a cup of acid dowsed on half his body by a mob boss? The journey was great, even if the character was far removed from its source material. I detested what Nolan did to Bane just as much as the next Batman fan, but the films WERE good, at the end of the day. Not revelations, not perfect, not amazing. Just plain old good.

    But Frank Miller inspired gruff and bulky Batman who brutalizes his victims because "darkness" and spend a bunch of screen time scowling? No, fuck that. That's disrespect towards your viewership. You're just slapping them over the head with your "this is gritty, WITNESS THIS GRITTINESS" message. It's over-the-top, and not in a good way. Just like Superman versus Zod resulted in RIDICULOUS levels of property damage might FEEL like a good direction to take a film (because wouldn't these Godlike entities cause massive destruction?) but they were betrayals of the characters and the setting. Now the aftermath of that fight is being treated like a "Frank Miller Meets 9/11", darkness meets bleakness, a HORRIBLE combination as a film idea. Everything about it looks like shit.

    Will it BE shit? Time will tell. But I have my money on "probably, yes".
     
  10. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    The Nolan films respected the audiences? That's why they had such blatant plot holes and ankle deep faux philosophical bullshit?
    Characterization in those movies was pretty terrible, specially Chritian Bale's Swatman. People praise the writitng in those movies but half the dialogue is characters giving speeches and over explaining what they are about to do. I don't get where did you get that those movies "don't explain things to the audience" when half of Clown Kobains dialogue is explaining himself over and over.

    And that's without going into the dumbassery that was the entire plot of the Third movie....

    I rather prefer a crazy Batman who is obssesed with his shtick and beats up violent criminals than some dude in swat armor that leaves all the inventing, detective work and everything that isn't just screaming at people to his lackeys. Batman in the Nolan movies was a completely boring character who was always trying to quit, whose idea of being a hero was just yelling at criminals in a stupid voice and go around in a tank while getting outsmarted by absolutely everyone while villains monologue about shopping mall versions of subversive philosophies.

    I never get this dumb squeeziness about "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" american people have with movies... it's a fight between two super beings while a terraforming device is destroying earth..... what where you expecting to happen? Zod and Superman to stop and calculate the monetary cost of their battle and agree to limit the destruction?
    Also Bats V Supes seems to be picking up from the aftermath of all that, with even "alternate perspective" versions of the events of man of steel.
     
  11. Courier

    Courier Venerable Relic of the Wastes
    Orderite

    Apr 10, 2011
    Marvel actually has an in-universe corporation that exists to clean up the messes left by superhero fights.

    Their shady business practices are the cause of the Civil War arc in the comics
     
  12. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    Right. YOU don't get it. Doesn't mean it's not there.

    Was any of what Ledger Joker said ACTUALLY what he was doing? No. Never. Barring aside the one-liner comments he made which he followed up on within a minute of saying it (example, "No no, I shoot the bus driver." and "I will make THIS pencil... disappear!"), his actual exposition was ALWAYS bullshit. When he described himself as a dog chasing cars and that he was not a man with plans, it was clearly bullshit, because he was planning all kinds of things, and he even freely admitted that Harvey was his planned "Ace in the hole". When he said he would blow up the boats at midnight, did he? No. He was using it as a threat to get them to blow each other up. Though he did have the means to blow them both up, it was never his expected course of action, because he was sure it would never come to that. When he told his "origin story" about how he got his scars, THAT was total bullshit, because he kept giving conflicting accounts (a subtle nod to The Killing Joke) so his actual origins remained a mystery. When he gave Batman the two addresses of Harvey and Rachel, he told them Rachel was where Harvey was and that Harvey was where Rachel was, so that no matter who anyone tried to save, they would ALWAYS fail.

    Ledger's Joker didn't given lengthy speeches because they were delivered to the audience to explain what was happening in the film. He gave lengthy speeches so the audience could see how what he promised was never what he fulfilled. If anything, they were tests to see if the audience was paying attention. TESTING your audience is a sign of respect. Lengthily and deliberately spelling things out for you, by contrast, is a sign of blatant disrespect. Like how painfully one must explain the obvious to another, for instance.....

    The only major Nolan film that was heavy on audience-addressing exposition was Inception, and that was because the plot HINGED entirely on the audience understanding this dream sharing idea. Even then, it wasn't full-blown exposition, because they TOTALLY skipped out on all the important details... like how I.V.'s allow people to share their consciousnesses with one another, for instance, or for that matter how the machine worked AT ALL. Those weren't important. The audience didn't need to be babied by the specifics of exactly how this or that was going to go down. All they needed to know was, "We have this convenient plot device. Here's a single line of dialog that explains away a plausibly acceptable reason for this plot device's existence. Just know that this is what this plot device does; that's all that matters." That's not heavy exposition, that's establishing a premise. It required some level of exposition to accomplish this, but it's not the same as characters speaking to each other in such a way that a discerning viewer can tell that what they're REALLY doing is talking directly to them and saying, "This is what's happening, stupid, cause we know you can't follow along unless we tell you that."

    That's the difference between respecting your audience and treating your audience like children. Bale having the worst Batman voice in history has nothing to do with it. Shitty gravel-gargling though it may have been, I'd take that over Clooney speaking exactly like Clooney whether he's being Wayne or Batman. Cause THAT is disrespect of your audience. Not very dissimilar to the entire premise of Superman's "secret identity", for that matter.....

    I guess that explains why you like the look of the film so much more... their lack of respect for you is justified.

    The "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" complaint isn't a LITERAL complaint about damage per capita, you dunce. It's a multi-faceted analysis of flaws in the film, from the perspective that Superman is idealistic to such a level that he would do his best to avoid causing undue harm to a city, if it could be helped, to the fact that the film thought indiscriminate damage being taken to ridiculous levels would make it "better" when all it actually did was more of that "over-the-top, and not in a good way" that I mentioned. It was spectacle without substance. It was MASSIVE damage that had all manner of consequences completely brushed off as nothing more than "it looks cool".

    The same people who complain about "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" also point out that the film had unnecessary time-sink filler in the form of (and I quote) "hentai tentacles" coming from the machine. Why were their "hentai tentacles" engaging Superman? Was it compelling? Was it advancing the story? Did it add to the drama? Did it help sell the urgency of the scene? No, it was just to soak up some time. It was just random nanotech-ish tentacles out of nowhere, and of course Superman can't fight against it... for about 2 minutes... then he can... for reasons.

    Whatever gave you that idea? Was it the bright, blazing neon sign in the "Frank-Miller-Meets-9/11" scene I already mentioned, which read in gigantic letters, "THIS IS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE OF THE FIGHT BETWEEN SUPERMAN AND ZOD FROM THE PREVIOUS FILM" by any chance? Cause for the life of me, I couldn't IMAGINE how you arrived to such a daring conclusion!

    Was the sarcasm thick enough? I hope it was obvious. Cause it was supposed to be obvious.
     
  13. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    "I don't get it" Nolan's movies are not avant garde art movies, they are pretty much blockbuster movies pretending to be deep.

    Clown Kobain is always giving his speeches about "chaos!!!!", and his scars, the movie just has to remind you about his fake backstories and he injects them at random in scenes where no one would even care. His characterization is rather poor too, Ledger gave a good performance but the character is pretty terribly written. All the dialogue in Nolan's movies is exposition, faux philosophical speeches about ankle deep "philosophy" and villaisn who just have speeches for teenagers to repeat and feel smart. Hell the movies are so riddled with plotholes, plot conveniences and just a complete lack of interest in the genre I still don't get how you can even feel like the movie respected you, like at all.

    "Superman is supposed to be idealistic!" Now I don't even get why you are complaining about, weren't you complaining about the movie not respecting you? Weren't you also praising the Batman Movie for Batman not being anything like Batman being super smart and respectful? I still find that "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" complaint to be stupid, Metropolis has gotten destroyed by villains in many comic stories, and the movie had a fight between two supermen happening on it.... I think a bigger disrespect to the adueicnes would've been to cop out and have them cause no damage despite the final act being so higher stakes with both the fight and what was happening in the story.... Or to you is "repsect to the audience" just giving them speeches and focusing on rich people having political discussions about a fictional city?

    Hentai Tentacles? What? uhmm I don't know anything there. You probably have more experience with those than me.


    Sarcasm works when it has a propouse, not when it's just describing something "sarcastically".
     
  14. SnapSlav

    SnapSlav NMA's local DotA fanatic

    Jul 1, 2012
    The purpose of the sarcasm was to illustrate that you were making a comment on the OBVIOUS as if it was a sterling revelation. It wasn't. It was God-fucking-damned obvious. "Laser beats cutting through sky scrapers and making them collapse was a call back to the battle between Superman and Zod in MOS? Seeing this event take place from Wayne's point of view was demonstrating how other people lived out that day? REALLY?" Yeah... No shit, Sherlocke.

    And, again, the "PROPERTY DAMAGE!!!" criticism was a comment about gratuity for the sake of gratuity, not for the sake of rewarding movie-watching. If after explaining this 3 times you still don't understand that, then yes, "you don't get it". Did Hulk have some kind of crazy duel with Loki? No. Was New York utterly demolished in the film? Yes. Did they FIXATE on the city being demolished during the invasion? NO! They fixated on the Avengers working together as a team... y'know, story? Character development? Really cool movie progression details that matter? New York got face-fucked, but the film didn't focus on demigodly characters reducing buildings to ruble just so we could see how fucking powerful they were. By all accounts, Hulk SHOULD have been easily capable of destroying several floors of buildings when he picked Loki up and flung him around like a doll. Did that happen? No. It TOTALLY COULD HAVE HAPPENED, yet the film ignored that. Why? Cause that would've been pointlessly gratuitous. What mattered in that scene was watching the pompous antagonist get his ass handed to him in a humorous manner of seconds, then move on to the next scene. Unnecessary breaking of things was not a focal point.
     
  15. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    So you are saying that all movies should be lighearted popcorn flicks like the Marvel movies are.... yet you are complaining about movies disrespecting your intelligence? Marvel movies are Smart DUMB movies, and I wouldn't call the Avengers a movie bursting with character development or even a good story, it was a movie about heroes fighting against aliens with some funny sequences where they interact. I liked it but I seriously wouldn't hope for every movie to be exactly like that when there is a high stakes action sequence at the end. Same reason I like Teen Titans the animated show for what it is, but I think Young Justice was a much better series in every sense, I don't demand all super hero fiction be just mindless fun. I do think that they shouldn't be dull pieces of crud that are focused in sucking out the interesting and fun parts of superhero mythos just to achieve some shallow sense of superiority by being "Realistic". I mean what's the point of callign your movie Batman when your hero is just some dude that never does any detective work, doesn't do any steath wants to quit every movie and whose face is always stuck in a dumbfounded slackjawed expression because he aparently thought he needed to make his Bat mask a solid piece that squeezes his face, and whose entire concept of vigilantism is goign around in a tank yelling at people in an incoherent gravely voice? Why make Ra's Al Ghoul a generic terrorist with no super natural elements? Why make the Joker into a grunge clown that makes grand speeches about shopping mall anarchism? Or why give Bane a thong for a mask, make him australian and remove venom? What was achieved there exactly?


    Well talking about lighthearted fun I went to see Antman, it was enjoyable, didn't blow me away, it was definetly not Captain America 2 but it was better than the Thor movies. It had it's fun moments, interesting visuals ad a fun protagonist (and an Avengers cameo). But if felt a little.... rushed in some bits, feels like the editor cut out huge chunks of certain scenes, specially the end battle when Antman fights Yellow Jacket, there is a lot of jump cuts in there that affect the flow of the lead up to the fight. The link to the Avengers was also a little forced and clunky, they could've left that out or better yet only show the conversation between Falcon and the Reporter. But hey, we got an offhand mention of Spidey so that's cool.
     
  16. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Level 27 Wizard Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    I actually liked all of the Avengers related stuff and the Falcon scenes. I didn't think I would, but it worked. I think one of the best things about the movie was how closely Paul Rudd mirrored Scott Lang from the comics. I hope the Russo's do an even better job with his character because Rudd can be really funny with the right script.
     
  17. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    I liked the Falcon fight, but didn't like the kind of rushed "mexican guy tale" segment at the end. It was kind of tacked on.

    Also one thing I really liked was how the worked with the premise that Scott is the second Antman while Pymm was the first a long time ago. I don't know the first thing about Antman but the element of Legacy identities has always been something I wish more superhero media explored (Young Justice did it too). It also ties up with the first Cap America movie and it's Antman easter egg. Also does away with having to put up with the "wife beater" thing on their protagonist that could've made Disney drop the proyect.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2015
  18. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Level 27 Wizard Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    The quantum realm stuff really sold me on the movie altogether.
     
  19. Walpknut

    Walpknut This ghoul has seen it all

    Dec 30, 2010
    Yeah that part was cool, maybe a sequel could focus more on the micro universes thing Marvel has going on.
     
  20. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign Level 27 Wizard Staff Member Moderator

    Apr 1, 2005
    The bad thing is they don't own the Micronauts. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/Micronauts-1.jpg

    Microverse would have been cool as far as a mention, but the Quantum Realm instead might introduce alternate dimensions in some way. Some people say they spotted Eternity.