|
Post by thenewnexus on Jul 10, 2019 20:49:25 GMT
I feel obligated to tell the public its a bad movie. I didnt lose anything tho You didn't really answer my question - if you didn't like Homecoming and the majority of Marvel Cinematic Universe movies what were you doing seeing Far From Home? "I feel obligated to tell the public its a bad movie" well it looks like said public isn't interested in what you think and are going to see the movie anyway, and based on scores and box office they seem to think quite differently than you do about it. And from "I didn't lose anything tho" are you implying that someone else paid for your ticket or that you watched it by other means(sneaking in, bootleg copy, etc.)? Either way, you're a hypocrite because you say you hate most things Marvel Studios yet here you were seeing another one, and don't act like there aren't other movies to see this summer season. No more of a hypocrite than u who hates all non mcu comic movies. Like I said i had an obligation to tell the public about these bad movies and i didn't really lose anything. FFH isn't the first crap movie to make money
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2019 21:01:54 GMT
Then I'm not quite sure I see your point. Many people, myself included, feel that MCU films like Avengers and Civil War are also untouchable classics. Superman (78) and Batman Begins and TDK are also untouchable classics in my book. It's not about being anti-MCU, or any film being perfectly or imperfectly adapted from the source material. Spiderman 2 is faithful to the characters in more ways then it's not. And no one can say that the new Holland films are more faithful to their villains, because they certainly aren't. My point, to be clear is, I think Spider-Man 2 is way overdue for serious re-evaluation within the modern context instead of being taken as an unimpeachable classic by default. This isn't about Raimi vs. MCU films. It's about challenging assumptions that have gone unchallenged for quite some time. Spider-Man 2 sits at the top of the list of Spider-Man films because no subsequent movie has come along to dethrone it, not because it is beyond reproach (which it isn't). These are two separate but admittedly closely related concepts. Fair enough, I suppose. For what it's worth, it is not just my favorite Spidey movie, it's still my all time favorite comic book movie. Id be curious to know what you mean by "modern context" though. That implies that comic book movies have somehow evolved into something better. I don't see this at all personally. The MCU films work so well because they still use the classic Hero's Journey character arcs that Superman 1 and 2 used so well before I was even born. The MCU revolutionized the shared universe, but that hardly impacts the quality of the individual solo movies. The average quality is higher than it was in the genre ten years ago because of the MCU, but again, that hardly speaks to why Spiderman 2 is somehow "outdated".
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jul 10, 2019 21:11:00 GMT
My point, to be clear is, I think Spider-Man 2 is way overdue for serious re-evaluation within the modern context instead of being taken as an unimpeachable classic by default. This isn't about Raimi vs. MCU films. It's about challenging assumptions that have gone unchallenged for quite some time. Spider-Man 2 sits at the top of the list of Spider-Man films because no subsequent movie has come along to dethrone it, not because it is beyond reproach (which it isn't). These are two separate but admittedly closely related concepts. Fair enough, I suppose. For what it's worth, it is not just my favorite Spidey movie, it's still my all time favorite comic book movie. Id be curious to know what you mean by "modern context" though. That implies that comic book movies have somehow evolved into something better. I don't see this at all personally. The MCU films work so well because they still use the classic Hero's Journey character arcs that Superman 1 and 2 used so well before I was even born. The MCU revolutionized the shared universe, but that hardly impacts the quality of the individual solo movies. The average quality is higher than it was in the genre ten years ago because of the MCU, but again, that hardly speaks to why Spiderman 2 is somehow "outdated". There is a lot of Sam Raimi camp in there. Which don't get me wrong, I'm the dude that paid over 100 bux a ticket to see Evil Dead the Musical. I love me some Sam Raimi, but I can see how for some it doesn't age well.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 10, 2019 21:21:46 GMT
Not that I am agreeing with it, but I think this might be the re-evaluation that the originally Raimi Movies that Lord Death Man is asking for. Yes, thanks for sharing this. It was this video that prompted my thinking on a reassessment. I was watching the film the other day, and while it is a master class in filmmaking, I was taken aback by how poorly the CGI translated to a late model 4K TV. It made me wonder if we’re all not seeing this film in a slightly rose-colored tinge after all these years.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Jul 10, 2019 21:27:21 GMT
Not that I am agreeing with it, but I think this might be the re-evaluation that the originally Raimi Movies that Lord Death Man is asking for. Yes, thanks for sharing this. It was this video that prompted my thinking on a reassessment. I was watching the film the other day, and while it is a master class in filmmaking, I was taken aback by how poorly the CGI translated to a late model 4K TV. It made me wonder if we’re all not seeing this film in a slightly rose-colored tinge after all these years. I remember hissing at Robert Ebert when he said what he did about the CGI back in the day. Going well he should move faster than a human, but if I'm to be honest I found I had to defend the CGI to almost everyone that saw it with me. At the Steak and Shake round table we used to have after seeing a movie. If that's any indication on the CGI even back then. I still feel it fits, but even I have to admit it's a pretty cartoony even for the time. Saying that I think the cartooniness (is that a word) fits in with Sam Raimi Camp™. Edit: I mean I remember hissing at the TV because I used to watch Sieskle and Ebert and Ebert and Roper.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 10, 2019 22:52:18 GMT
My point, to be clear is, I think Spider-Man 2 is way overdue for serious re-evaluation within the modern context instead of being taken as an unimpeachable classic by default. This isn't about Raimi vs. MCU films. It's about challenging assumptions that have gone unchallenged for quite some time. Spider-Man 2 sits at the top of the list of Spider-Man films because no subsequent movie has come along to dethrone it, not because it is beyond reproach (which it isn't). These are two separate but admittedly closely related concepts. Fair enough, I suppose. For what it's worth, it is not just my favorite Spidey movie, it's still my all time favorite comic book movie. Id be curious to know what you mean by "modern context" though. That implies that comic book movies have somehow evolved into something better. I don't see this at all personally. The MCU films work so well because they still use the classic Hero's Journey character arcs that Superman 1 and 2 used so well before I was even born. The MCU revolutionized the shared universe, but that hardly impacts the quality of the individual solo movies. The average quality is higher than it was in the genre ten years ago because of the MCU, but again, that hardly speaks to why Spiderman 2 is somehow "outdated". A modern context simply refers to a world where drones strikes, charter schools, diversified classrooms, social media, cell phones, asymmetrical warfare, and other modern accouterment exist. Aunt May has traded in her stay-at-home pie baking persona for one of a modern-day, single-parent activist. Some aspects of Spider-Man 2 and the series, in general, seem so quaint as to ALMOST inspire derision. I think, objectively speaking, Spider-Man 2 feels a little dated solely based on how much the world has changed in the last decade and a half. That in and of itself doesn't make the film bad; however, it rarely gets acknowledged when people discuss the film in overly warm and glowing tones. The film feels trapped in amber and isn't necessarily even representative of the time it was created in either. Its New York feels like the New York of an art-deco, parallel reality. (As an actual New Yorker, I'm uniquely qualified to comment on this). In my own not-so-humble opinion, the film feels insular, overly sentimental and suffers just as much from overreliance on camp and humor as modern-day franchises but, it is somehow immune to the same persecution. Some of the stuff with the landlord is borderline cringey. I'm not trying to knock your favorite comic book film. I'm just saying it might be time to re-open the conversation. I treat Spider-Man 2 as a wildly imaginative fantasy with an almost Dickensian charm that matches the likes of Superman the Movie (which is now open to near savage critique after umpteen decades of being considered untouchable).
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 11, 2019 0:04:34 GMT
You didn't really answer my question - if you didn't like Homecoming and the majority of Marvel Cinematic Universe movies what were you doing seeing Far From Home? "I feel obligated to tell the public its a bad movie" well it looks like said public isn't interested in what you think and are going to see the movie anyway, and based on scores and box office they seem to think quite differently than you do about it. And from "I didn't lose anything tho" are you implying that someone else paid for your ticket or that you watched it by other means(sneaking in, bootleg copy, etc.)? Either way, you're a hypocrite because you say you hate most things Marvel Studios yet here you were seeing another one, and don't act like there aren't other movies to see this summer season. No more of a hypocrite than u who hates all non mcu comic movies. Like I said i had an obligation to tell the public about these bad movies and i didn't really lose anything. FFH isn't the first crap movie to make money I'm not the one seeing movies I have neither interest in or feel that I won't like, which is what you do(P.S. I like quite a few non mcu comic movies so I don't know where you're getting your info when I've already cited favorites on here). You say you hate every Marvel Studios movie besides Captain America: The Winter Soldier yet you still see every new MCU movie and even after you go on ad on about how poor the quality of them are you still are there opening weekend for the next one. You've said on many occasion that Spider-Man: Homecoming is the worst Spider-Man movie ever made, so what were you doing seeing its sequel? Why did you see Endgame? Captain Marvel? Ant-Man and the Wasp? Infinity War? And so on, and so on. And are you kidding us with 'obligation'? We all know you ain't a film critic so there's no reason for you to see these movies because of a contractual stipulation that requires viewership of every new release per week. You can talk bad about the movie all you like but in the end the movie is a crowd pleaser and you cannot really argue against that based on the collected data of movie based websites which track audience and critic approval and financial gain(which measures popularity). It's getting old dude, your new excuse to see these movies is just plain lazy, just admit that you like the MCU(You are here most the time anyways) and are just trolling because you cannot really contribute anything to discussion and don't want to be 'just another random user'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 2:01:10 GMT
This is probably recency bias as I just saw the movie yesterday.
Far From Home Spider-Verse Spider-Man 2 Homecoming Spider-Man Amazing Spider-Man Amazing Spider-Man 2 Spider-Man 3
Tom Holland for me is just without a doubt the best version of Spider-Man/Peter Parker. While the first two Raimi movies were good/great I never liked Tobey Macguire. Imo he was the weakest link in those first two movies while Tom Holland just shines in his films.
For the most part I like all the Spider-Man movies outside of Amazing 2 and Spider-Man 3. Amazing 1 wasn't great by any means but the chemistry of Garfield and Stone really brought it up to being decent enough. Spider-Man 3 is just a shit show. Topher Grace as Venom was the worst thing and "emo Peter" was soooo bad. If I had to rewatch all these films SM3 would be the one I would be least looking forward to.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 11, 2019 2:57:49 GMT
No more of a hypocrite than u who hates all non mcu comic movies. Like I said i had an obligation to tell the public about these bad movies and i didn't really lose anything. FFH isn't the first crap movie to make money I'm not the one seeing movies I have neither interest in or feel that I won't like, which is what you do(P.S. I like quite a few non mcu comic movies so I don't know where you're getting your info when I've already cited favorites on here). You say you hate every Marvel Studios movie besides Captain America: The Winter Soldier yet you still see every new MCU movie and even after you go on ad on about how poor the quality of them are you still are there opening weekend for the next one. You've said on many occasion that Spider-Man: Homecoming is the worst Spider-Man movie ever made, so what were you doing seeing its sequel? Why did you see Endgame? Captain Marvel? Ant-Man and the Wasp? Infinity War? And so on, and so on. And are you kidding us with 'obligation'? We all know you ain't a film critic so there's no reason for you to see these movies because of a contractual stipulation that requires viewership of every new release per week. You can talk bad about the movie all you like but in the end the movie is a crowd pleaser and you cannot really argue against that based on the collected data of movie based websites which track audience and critic approval and financial gain(which measures popularity). It's getting old dude, your new excuse to see these movies is just plain lazy, just admit that you like the MCU(You are here most the time anyways) and are just trolling because you cannot really contribute anything to discussion and don't want to be 'just another random user'. “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I tell you this from the depth of my soul, I woke up this morning knowing that I and I alone was obligated to go out and see bad movies to bring you back my incredibly insightful and terse three-word reviews. You see, a voice came to me from up on high and said, YOU are special and only YOU are in possession of the truth when it comes to critiquing MCU films. I tell you I was laid low by my sacred charge. The world MUST hear what I have to say or, face the flames of cinematic perdition!” Praise the new nexus everyone - because he’s worthy.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 11, 2019 14:25:06 GMT
Lord Death ManYou are stretching things a little bit here; "a world where drones strikes, charter schools, diversified classrooms, social media, cell phones, asymmetrical warfare"We had ALL of those things in 2004. I agree with you that the world in Spider-Man 2 is a somewhat stylized fantasy world but that is true of most superhero movies going back to Superman (1978) and up to and including the MCU. That is also just being true to the comics. I don't think any of the things you mentioned impacts the fact that Spider-Man 2 was and is a great and extremely influential superhero movie. You may feel that better movies have come along since and I may feel that way too but I don't see a reason to argue with people who hold the opinion that Spider-Man 2 is their favorite or the best Spider-Man movie. I would much rather argue with people who just flat out hate the MCU and therefore put anything that is not MCU into a higher category. That's intellectual dishonesty that should be confronted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 17:45:45 GMT
Not that I am agreeing with it, but I think this might be the re-evaluation that the originally Raimi Movies that Lord Death Man is asking for. Ugh. I hate that video. There are also great videos on why it's still a classic series. LDM should watch those instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 17:51:24 GMT
Lord Death Man You are stretching things a little bit here; "a world where drones strikes, charter schools, diversified classrooms, social media, cell phones, asymmetrical warfare"We had ALL of those things in 2004. I agree with you that the world in Spider-Man 2 is a somewhat stylized fantasy world but that is true of most superhero movies going back to Superman (1978) and up to and including the MCU. That is also just being true to the comics. I don't think any of the things you mentioned impacts the fact that Spider-Man 2 was and is a great and extremely influential superhero movie. You may feel that better movies have come along since and I may feel that way too but I don't see a reason to argue with people who hold the opinion that Spider-Man 2 is their favorite or the best Spider-Man movie. I would much rather argue with people who just flat out hate the MCU and therefore put anything that is not MCU into a higher category. That's intellectual dishonesty that should be confronted. Amen, brother! LDM makes it sound like the movie was made in 1930. LOL. I'll also add that the Raimi movies are very much a love letter to the original comics. I don't believe "modernizing" classic characters is something that has to be done. I'd rather they focus on what makes the stories so beloved, instead of trying to spoon feed them to modern audiences. Peter's issues of personal desire and its conflict with his responsibility as a hero is a timeless story and is not in any way dated. Spiderman 2 nails this theme, and that's what it remains the best Spidey film.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 11, 2019 18:53:40 GMT
IMO:
Spider-Man 2 Spider-Man Spiderverse The Amazing Spider-Man Homecoming Far From Home The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Spider-Man 3
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 11, 2019 19:00:01 GMT
No one breaks with the idea that Spider-Man 2 is the perfect Spider-Man film even though Otto Octavius, as presented, isn't very much like his comic book counterpart. Interesting... No one breaks with the idea that Spider-Man 2 is the perfect Spider-Man film because it is the perfect Spider-Man film. So far. Just like Dark Knight is the perfect Batman film. So far.
Otto Octavius, as presented, IS very much like his comic book counterpart, except in a few details. They explore that he had a wife he loved very much, that his experiment led to her death, and that the arms have a "live" component of their own. But other than that it's Doctor Octopus right down to the overweight body type and bad hair cut.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 11, 2019 23:27:48 GMT
No one breaks with the idea that Spider-Man 2 is the perfect Spider-Man film even though Otto Octavius, as presented, isn't very much like his comic book counterpart. Interesting... No one breaks with the idea that Spider-Man 2 is the perfect Spider-Man film because it is the perfect Spider-Man film. So far. Just like Dark Knight is the perfect Batman film. So far.
Otto Octavius, as presented, IS very much like his comic book counterpart, except in a few details. They explore that he had a wife he loved very much, that his experiment led to her death, and that the arms have a "live" component of their own. But other than that it's Doctor Octopus right down to the overweight body type and bad hair cut.
Can you cite the issues where makes a heroic sacrifice to save others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 1:47:45 GMT
No one breaks with the idea that Spider-Man 2 is the perfect Spider-Man film because it is the perfect Spider-Man film. So far. Just like Dark Knight is the perfect Batman film. So far.
Otto Octavius, as presented, IS very much like his comic book counterpart, except in a few details. They explore that he had a wife he loved very much, that his experiment led to her death, and that the arms have a "live" component of their own. But other than that it's Doctor Octopus right down to the overweight body type and bad hair cut.
Can you cite the issues where makes a heroic sacrifice to save others? That ending was chosen to highlight the central theme and to provide contrast with Green Goblin's demise in the previous film. I understand that comic book Ock is generally more of a pure evil style villain, but surely you can grant the filmmaker some leeway here when it comes to adapting these characters to fit the story they are telling. Can you name a Spiderman comic where Vulture protects Peter's identity? I can't. Vulture is the nastiest prick of all in the comics I've read. Does that bother you as well? How about Mysterio being 100% motivated by a grudge with Iron Man? I don't recall that either.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 12, 2019 14:34:26 GMT
No one breaks with the idea that Spider-Man 2 is the perfect Spider-Man film because it is the perfect Spider-Man film. So far. Just like Dark Knight is the perfect Batman film. So far.
Otto Octavius, as presented, IS very much like his comic book counterpart, except in a few details. They explore that he had a wife he loved very much, that his experiment led to her death, and that the arms have a "live" component of their own. But other than that it's Doctor Octopus right down to the overweight body type and bad hair cut.
Can you cite the issues where makes a heroic sacrifice to save others? Clear up your sentence. I'm not sure who/what you mean? Spidey or Ock? Or...
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2019 14:56:40 GMT
Can you cite the issues where makes a heroic sacrifice to save others? Clear up your sentence. I'm not sure who/what you mean? Spidey or Ock? Or... It doesn’t really matter. If you believe that Doctor Octopus of Spider-Man 2 matches his comic book counterpart, that’s fine. I just don’t recall him ever playing the role of a mentor or making a heroic sacrifice with his dying breath. If Spider-Man 2 is indeed the best Spider-Man movie, I literally can’t argue that.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 12, 2019 16:26:22 GMT
Clear up your sentence. I'm not sure who/what you mean? Spidey or Ock? Or... It doesn’t really matter. If you believe that Doctor Octopus of Spider-Man 2 matches his comic book counterpart, that’s fine. I just don’t recall him ever playing the role of a mentor or making a heroic sacrifice with his dying breath. If Spider-Man 2 is indeed the best Spider-Man movie, I literally can’t argue that. I see. In the comics he's much more of a cartoon character though. He's you classic cackling evil scientist villain. Did you really want that slim, that corny, of a character in the movie version? I think the changes in the movie made him a better overall character.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2019 16:56:05 GMT
It doesn’t really matter. If you believe that Doctor Octopus of Spider-Man 2 matches his comic book counterpart, that’s fine. I just don’t recall him ever playing the role of a mentor or making a heroic sacrifice with his dying breath. If Spider-Man 2 is indeed the best Spider-Man movie, I literally can’t argue that. I see. In the comics he's much more of a cartoon character though. He's you classic cackling evil scientist villain. Did you really want that slim, that corny, of a character in the movie version? I think the changes in the movie made him a better overall character. The changes made him "relatable," which is fine. Everyone and their mother is hanging their hat on relatability now, especially when it comes to villains. Every villain somehow has to be relatable to be considered credible. Personally, I think the allure of the true villain is that you can't relate to them. Their brain chemistry, desires, and world view defy comprehension and analysis by the sane individual. Making villains more relatable is a way of downplaying the existence of actual indiscriminate evil. I will concede that the relatable approach does assist with building credible motivations. In the comics that I read, Otto Octavius is a cunning and manipulative sadist. He is a psychopath who is generally unconcerned with the suffering of others. I don't feel Spider-Man two captured that accurately. What I think Spider-Man two did capture about Otto correctly is that he is a member of the scientific community who feels he has been underappreciated. Making the Doctor into someone, we could sympathize with is an invention of the movie - which, again, is fine and worked well for the film. The problem is, you can't have this conversation without someone saying, "the MCU does that too!" You can no longer discuss this film as a standalone entity. The posture of those who love it is to defend it from all comers at all costs. Cool. I get that. I just can't bring myself to waste my time discussing it in that context.
|
|