JustInFudge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I think sometimes we forget that we are watching movies that are supposed to be aimed at 12 year olds. haha, kind of my point. I'm going to see a superhero movie about fighting aliens and sh*t. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 haha, kind of my point. I'm going to see a superhero movie about fighting aliens and sh*t. lol Kind of my problem with Mad Max. The action as great, but I never thought of it as just an action franchise. I want my anger and vengeance. Max fought plenty, but he wasn't angry enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 In one breath, you're complaining about "character development" and then in another, you're saying that they dont need new wrinkles because the characters are developed enough. I thought this took a deeper angle further than just their strengths and how they deal with and adapt to society excepting them, etc. They went the route of their personal strengths, ideals, agendas and how that works in a team tasked to protect the world. IDK - I guess I just dont know what people really expected. Its a superhero movie that involves a sh*t ton of superhero's. I got to imagine its hard to keep it perfectly cohesive, even though I didnt necessarily have a problem with it. And its clear this was a set up flick. So I was fine with now it ties some stories from their other movies together and then setting it up for the real threat we've been waiting for them to battle in Thanos. Fun movie IMO. I enjoyed it. I want to watch it again! I didn't say that at all, actually. "effective character-defining nuance" is the small details, like Stark being arrogant and Hulk saying Smash. The familiar. The character development nonsense is all the re-definition of the familiar that Whedon tried to shove into the new movie. Agree that it was a set-up film. Disagree that that is acceptable. Empire Strikes back was also a set-up film, but it also stands alone and I (like many) would argue it's the best of the 3 original movies. Marvel's philosophy has never been to make the best movie at each opportunity, it has been to drag the popularity of comic book movies out as long as possible. If all the writing talent wasn't working for AMC and HBO, then the comic book movie trend would have ground to a halt because Marvel churns out sh*t movies. Hollywood is desperate for content though, and Marvel has decades of old stories that can be adapted. Just don't expect them to do a good job adapting them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I think sometimes we forget that we are watching movies that are supposed to be aimed at 12 year olds. Yes and no. If these movies were purely aimed at 12 year olds, then they wouldn't be basing them on story lines from 20+ years ago. I think Marvel can't decide who they want to target, they're trying too hard to appeal to kids and adults. Which is why they make bad movies, generally speaking. haha, kind of my point. I'm going to see a superhero movie about fighting aliens and sh*t. lol Almost all of the other sci-fi movies being made right now set the bar very high for story telling and movie making. Very high. I get what you're saying, but quality films and fictional subject matter are not mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Kind of my problem with Mad Max. The action as great, but I never thought of it as just an action franchise. I want my anger and vengeance. Max fought plenty, but he wasn't angry enough. Good point. He was sort of an accessory to Charlize's character. The movie really wasn't about Mad Max at all, he just happened to get dropped into the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 Kind of my problem with Mad Max. The action as great, but I never thought of it as just an action franchise. I want my anger and vengeance. Max fought plenty, but he wasn't angry enough. This was post-anger Max. He was looking for redemption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 I didn't say that at all, actually. "effective character-defining nuance" is the small details, like Stark being arrogant and Hulk saying Smash. The familiar. The character development nonsense is all the re-definition of the familiar that Whedon tried to shove into the new movie. Agree that it was a set-up film. Disagree that that is acceptable. Empire Strikes back was also a set-up film, but it also stands alone and I (like many) would argue it's the best of the 3 original movies. Marvel's philosophy has never been to make the best movie at each opportunity, it has been to drag the popularity of comic book movies out as long as possible. If all the writing talent wasn't working for AMC and HBO, then the comic book movie trend would have ground to a halt because Marvel churns out sh*t movies. Hollywood is desperate for content though, and Marvel has decades of old stories that can be adapted. Just don't expect them to do a good job adapting them. Fair enough. We're going to disagree, as I dont see it that way at all...but whatevs. Movies are like music. To each his own. I liked it. And I like most Marvel movies because I'm trying to be entertained and see some cool sh*t, not be blown way by the writing. Again, its superheros with special powers killing aliens and drones and sh*t. And I hate the Empire Strikes Back as a setup episode argument as I've seen it before. They introduced Yoda. Game over. haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 Good point. He was sort of an accessory to Charlize's character. The movie really wasn't about Mad Max at all, he just happened to get dropped into the situation. The movie was about Charlize's mission, and how it gave both her and Max a chance to do something virtuous in a world being reborn to its base instincts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted June 8, 2015 Author Share Posted June 8, 2015 Fair enough. We're going to disagree, as I dont see it that way at all...but whatevs. Movies are like music. To each his own. I liked it. And I like most Marvel movies because I'm trying to be entertained and see some cool sh*t, not be blown way by the writing. Again, its superheros with special powers killing aliens and drones and sh*t. And I hate the Empire Strikes Back as a setup episode argument as I've seen it before. They introduced Yoda. Game over. haha The huge issue with Avengers 2 was that the villain sucked. Hiddleston may have been the best screen villain since Ledger's Joker. Ultron was a boring, non-threatening robot whose army was made up of likewise boring, non-threatening robots. At no point did you feel as though anything was in jeopardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Yes and no. If these movies were purely aimed at 12 year olds, then they wouldn't be basing them on story lines from 20+ years ago. I think Marvel can't decide who they want to target, they're trying too hard to appeal to kids and adults. Which is why they make bad movies, generally speaking. Almost all of the other sci-fi movies being made right now set the bar very high for story telling and movie making. Very high. I get what you're saying, but quality films and fictional subject matter are not mutually exclusive. This is true but how deep can you get with guys dressed up in tights doing impossible sh*t? Its not like we're getting introduced to something new...like the Matrix or something mind blowing like that. The content has been around for what, almost 60 years? I do get your point though, dont get me wrong. The Batman trilogy was off the charts from a writing perspective. I think its just easier to do when you're focusing on 1 character, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 The huge issue with Avengers 2 was that the villain sucked. Hiddleston may have been the best screen villain since Ledger's Joker. Ultron was a boring, non-threatening robot whose army was made up of likewise boring, non-threatening robots. At no point did you feel as though anything was in jeopardy. Oh, you were afraid Loki was going to defeat the Avengers in the first movie of a 3 part series? lmfao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 The movie was about Charlize's mission, and how it gave both her and Max a chance to do something virtuous in a world being reborn to its base instincts. Yes, I know. Just acknowledging Dom's point that Max wasn't really all that Mad. The huge issue with Avengers 2 was that the villain sucked. Hiddleston may have been the best screen villain since Ledger's Joker. Ultron was a boring, non-threatening robot whose army was made up of likewise boring, non-threatening robots. At no point did you feel as though anything was in jeopardy. Are you confining this statement to just the comic book movie genre? If not, then it's an abstract way of looking at it, and definitely outside the realm of comics, but I think this honor goes to JK Simmons in Whiplash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 And maybe I was caught in the moment high on some killer kush bud...but I didnt think Ultron was that bad. Certainly not the best villain I've ever seen but not the worst either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 This is true but how deep can you get with guys dressed up in tights doing impossible sh*t? Its not like we're getting introduced to something new...like the Matrix or something mind blowing like that. The content has been around for what, almost 60 years? I do get your point though, dont get me wrong. The Batman trilogy was off the charts from a writing perspective. I think its just easier to do when you're focusing on 1 character, I guess. Which gets back to one of my points. Marvel cannot help but fall victim to their propensity for jamming origin story in our faces. The reason the remake of Dredd was so damn good was because there was no belaboring of the origin. They just dropped the character into the situation. And Dredd isn't even a familiar character. Marvel's marketing department wants to get fans to buy into the brand of every character. Part of that, is over-explaining where they came from, how they got their powers, and yada yada yada. Sometimes, it's just better for the movie to have characters be there. Especially in the ensemble movies. They almost did it well in one of the older X-Men films when the rolled Gambit into the mix, no real background, just dropped him in. He's a great character, he made that particular film more interesting because he was there. Yes the content is old, but that doesn't mean that the movies can't be mind-blowing. In fact, the content being familiar means the movies don't always have to follow the formula of introducing the characters as though nobody knows who they are. This whole movie just felt unnecessary to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 And maybe I was caught in the moment high on some killer kush bud...but I didnt think Ultron was that bad. Certainly not the best villain I've ever seen but not the worst either. Ultron had panache, but they didn't leverage the voice talent or character very well at all. He lost screen time so that Scarlett Johansen could tickle the Hulk's wrist and we could find out that Hawkeye wears a flannel shirt on his off days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTM Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 Oh, you were afraid Loki was going to defeat the Avengers in the first movie of a 3 part series? lmfao terrifying, had nightmares for weeks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Integrity28 Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 terrifying, had nightmares for weeks He had T0m at the double phalic helmet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 8, 2015 Share Posted June 8, 2015 This was post-anger Max. He was looking for redemption. Post-anger? He was being used as a blood bank? Why wasn't he angrier? There was less personal purpose to his anger. He was just helping out because he's a good guy. He should still be Mad about Jessie and Sprog. WTF? The movie was about Charlize's mission, and how it gave both her and Max a chance to do something virtuous in a world being reborn to its base instincts. Yes, I know. Just acknowledging Dom's point that Max wasn't really all that Mad. I know too, but then why didn't they call it Chalize Theron's One-Armed Furiosa Tour? The huge issue with Avengers 2 was that the villain sucked. Hiddleston may have been the best screen villain since Ledger's Joker. Ultron was a boring, non-threatening robot whose army was made up of likewise boring, non-threatening robots. At no point did you feel as though anything was in jeopardy. That is one of the problems. There are always armies of robots. They hold no interest and are just there to make for explosions. I guess they are worried about killing off too many characters that you become invested in, but it is like watching a drone war. Dull and impersonal. Not barbaric enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 The huge issue with Avengers 2 was that the villain sucked. Hiddleston may have been the best screen villain since Ledger's Joker. Ultron was a boring, non-threatening robot whose army was made up of likewise boring, non-threatening robots. At no point did you feel as though anything was in jeopardy. The dropoff there alone....Marvel blows, except for Captain America, hopefully Black Panther, and Daredevil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Which gets back to one of my points. Marvel cannot help but fall victim to their propensity for jamming origin story in our faces. The reason the remake of Dredd was so damn good was because there was no belaboring of the origin. They just dropped the character into the situation. And Dredd isn't even a familiar character. Marvel's marketing department wants to get fans to buy into the brand of every character. Part of that, is over-explaining where they came from, how they got their powers, and yada yada yada. Sometimes, it's just better for the movie to have characters be there. Especially in the ensemble movies. They almost did it well in one of the older X-Men films when the rolled Gambit into the mix, no real background, just dropped him in. He's a great character, he made that particular film more interesting because he was there. Yes the content is old, but that doesn't mean that the movies can't be mind-blowing. In fact, the content being familiar means the movies don't always have to follow the formula of introducing the characters as though nobody knows who they are. This whole movie just felt unnecessary to me. They're trying to appeal to the masses, not comic book fan boys who already know everything about the characters. I'd say 90% of the people who go see these movies didnt read the comics or know the origin of the characters which is really the most interesting aspect of comics for most casual fans. You really think people are familiar with Scarlet Witch, Vision, Quicksilver, etc? Hell no. This is the first time they've heard of them and they dont really care about them...they care about Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, etc. Again, I think trying to have a movie with a team of superhero's this big is a challenge. Winter Soldier might have been the best Marvel movie yet and they did everything you're complaining about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 You guys are surprised the second Avengers movie sucked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor99 Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 You guys are surprised the second Avengers movie sucked? No, but I am surprised that we've finally found something that you dislike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Can't wait to see Human Centipede 3. I think they connect about 200 people in this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchmemory Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Can't wait to see Human Centipede 3. I think they connect about 200 people in this one. Bowles should show the flick during training camp to build team unity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Bowles should show the flick during training camp to build team unity. Geno should be the center piece 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munchmemory Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Geno should be the center piece lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Kind of my problem with Mad Max. The action as great, but I never thought of it as just an action franchise. I want my anger and vengeance. Max fought plenty, but he wasn't angry enough. You don't get his character. He's a pawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 You don't get his character. He's a pawn. You are more oblivious than I thought. He refused to be a pawn. That is why he resigned, took the Interceptor and went all He is not a pawn, he is the MAXIMUM FORCE OF THE FUTURE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Entourage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I think sometimes we forget that we are watching movies that are supposed to be aimed at 12 year olds. bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Entourage. Sucked. All the funny parts you've seen in the commercials cuz there ain't much else. Some of the storylines that took years to develop on the show were awkwardly written out in the first act. The most interesting characters in the show (Ari, Drama) didn't have much to do - 90% of the movie is about how much E gets laid by models. Oh and if you think the new Avengers movie does nothing but setup the sequel - this movie does nothing for the last hour BUT setup the sequel(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Can't believe a film centered around a guy named Turtle trying to bang Ronda Rousey did bad box office (( 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Sucked. All the funny parts you've seen in the commercials cuz there ain't much else. Some of the storylines that took years to develop on the show were awkwardly written out in the first act. The most interesting characters in the show (Ari, Drama) didn't have much to do - 90% of the movie is about how much E gets laid by models. Oh and if you think the new Avengers movie does nothing but setup the sequel - this movie does nothing for the last hour BUT setup the sequel(s). It was one long episode of Entourage for which you had to pay the price of a movie ticket. I was a big fan of the first 3 seasons. After 3-4 years it was not too bad watching the boys back in town. It was not ground breaking cinema. It was decent entertainment for 90 odd minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The movie was 90 minutes long and by a month ago I had seen 3 15 minute trailers. What could be left? There is more mystery in the Ari Gold Cadillac commercials. They'd better come out with the punchline fast or they will have to hold it for the video release in two weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdetroit Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 It was one long episode of Entourage for which you had to pay the price of a movie ticket. I was a big fan of the first 3 seasons. After 3-4 years it was not too bad watching the boys back in town. It was not ground breaking cinema. It was decent entertainment for 90 odd minutes. I just think the writers weren't ambitious which is why the movie felt like 3 filler episodes cobbled together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.