|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 3, 2017 15:26:45 GMT
It's for more than just die hards, and even so, it's relevant to evaluating the film. I like Falcon but his appearance in Antman did nothing for me,it didn't make the movie better for me. Or worse for that matter Why did you pick one example? And why that one?
There are dozens, maybe hundreds of others, and most all of them can be reflected on to see how they got to the point we are at, thereby increasing the value of those moments.
|
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Jul 3, 2017 16:07:16 GMT
Ok, another: the Aether will most likely appear in Infinity War, right? i highly doubt it will make me like The Dark World more
Did the Tesseract make me like TFA more? no, i liked it just fine before Avengers 1
I don't consider Guardians 1 top 3 MCU just because an infinty gem is in the movie, i love it because it's a great movie.
You might be thinking i'm bashing the MCU, but i'm not. there are some movies i don't like and some things that don't resonate well with me but i'm not an MCU hater.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 3, 2017 17:31:16 GMT
It will hold up fine. If a lack of plot is supposed to make it tank, then in that case so should Logan...
And that's not happening.
At the end of the day, it's about how well the movie was made and how much it pleased the fans. It's two-for-two there.
|
|
moviemeisters
Sophomore
"Cinema is not a slice of life, but a piece of cake."
@moviemeisters
Posts: 190
Likes: 99
 
|
Post by moviemeisters on Jul 4, 2017 15:36:19 GMT
It's good first of all, I gave it a 7, which if you know anything about my scoring system a 9 is perfect and 10 is perfect plus your personal taste. 8 is extremely good. 7 is good, 6 is enjoyable, 5 is nothing special nothing terrible, 4 is not so good, 3 is bad, 2 is terrible, 1 is fucking awful, and 0 is the worst shit possible. For comparison I gave MOS a 4 for large sections of 5 and several moments of 3. But here's the thing, Not all that much happens in WW. She decides to go after Ares, they walk through a battle field, she finds him, the end. It's like there's no meat on the bone. Nothing to really carry forward or explore or reflect on in much of any way. It just is what it is. Compare that to First Avenger where you had all sorts of things to build on, from Shield to Hydra to Vibranium to the Tesseract to Peggy Carter to the Winter Soldier, and there was a lot of meat to explore in the future of the MCU. But the DCU isn't going to get any mileage out of anything they developed in WW. I think I heard the Amazons are going to be seen in a flashback in JL. Is that it? So without anything to build on, even though it is the best of the DCU films so far, it's not really all that relevant to anything that is going to happen later. Can you really see any Civil War types moments happening where it made a lot of the prior films better, happening to WW? I don't really see how. I cannot possibly subscribe to the idea that because a film sets up more elements for its sequels that it makes that film better (or makes it hold up longer). Did the fact that the TASM movies set up for sequels (that will never happen) make those films better? Did the fact that The Mummy (2017) set up a series of monster sequels make that film better? In fact, I would argue that the fact that The First Avenger had the Sci-fi elements related to the Tesseract made that film weaker (setting-wise, anyway). These elements are NOT the "meat" of the narratives. The "meat" is the plot, characterization, setting, etc. of the film we're CURRENTLY watching. In THAT regard Wonder Woman does better than The First Avenger: i.e. Wonder Woman grows as a character to nearly the end of the film, while the characterization in The First Avenger essentially ends after Cap rescues Bucky and friends from the Red Skull's base. By that standard, Wonder Woman is the film with more "meat". One thing I will give you ArArArchStanton, is that a sequel referencing elements of a previous film can make that sequel better (continuity is driving the storytelling). It's just that those elements make the original film worse if they're there ONLY to set up a sequel. It sacrifices the quality of the current film for the sake of the franchise and, because I don't like EVERY film in the franchise, it lowers the quality of the films. The MCU may be driven by its continuity, but that makes the elements that will never be addressed (like parts of The Incredible Hulk) just open ends. It's putting the cart before the horse. I say all this with all due respect to your opinion, ArArArchStanton. By the way, I'm also a fan of TGTBATU. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 4, 2017 18:58:43 GMT
I cannot possibly subscribe to the idea that because a film sets up more elements for its sequels that it makes that film better (or makes it hold up longer). Did the fact that the TASM movies set up for sequels (that will never happen) make those films better? Did the fact that The Mummy (2017) set up a series of monster sequels make that film better? In fact, I would argue that the fact that The First Avenger had the Sci-fi elements related to the Tesseract made that film weaker (setting-wise, anyway). These elements are NOT the "meat" of the narratives. The "meat" is the plot, characterization, setting, etc. of the film we're CURRENTLY watching. In THAT regard Wonder Woman does better than The First Avenger: i.e. Wonder Woman grows as a character to nearly the end of the film, while the characterization in The First Avenger essentially ends after Cap rescues Bucky and friends from the Red Skull's base. By that standard, Wonder Woman is the film with more "meat". One thing I will give you ArArArchStanton, is that a sequel referencing elements of a previous film can make that sequel better (continuity is driving the storytelling). It's just that those elements make the original film worse if they're there ONLY to set up a sequel. It sacrifices the quality of the current film for the sake of the franchise and, because I don't like EVERY film in the franchise, it lowers the quality of the films. The MCU may be driven by its continuity, but that makes the elements that will never be addressed (like parts of The Incredible Hulk) just open ends. It's putting the cart before the horse.  Excellent post! ArArArchStanton just got owned! Another failed thread by ArArArchStanton!
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 5, 2017 20:07:55 GMT
I cannot possibly subscribe to the idea that because a film sets up more elements for its sequels that it makes that film better (or makes it hold up longer). Did the fact that the TASM movies set up for sequels (that will never happen) make those films better? Did the fact that The Mummy (2017) set up a series of monster sequels make that film better? In fact, I would argue that the fact that The First Avenger had the Sci-fi elements related to the Tesseract made that film weaker (setting-wise, anyway). These elements are NOT the "meat" of the narratives. The "meat" is the plot, characterization, setting, etc. of the film we're CURRENTLY watching. In THAT regard Wonder Woman does better than The First Avenger: i.e. Wonder Woman grows as a character to nearly the end of the film, while the characterization in The First Avenger essentially ends after Cap rescues Bucky and friends from the Red Skull's base. By that standard, Wonder Woman is the film with more "meat". One thing I will give you ArArArchStanton, is that a sequel referencing elements of a previous film can make that sequel better (continuity is driving the storytelling). It's just that those elements make the original film worse if they're there ONLY to set up a sequel. It sacrifices the quality of the current film for the sake of the franchise and, because I don't like EVERY film in the franchise, it lowers the quality of the films. The MCU may be driven by its continuity, but that makes the elements that will never be addressed (like parts of The Incredible Hulk) just open ends. It's putting the cart before the horse. I say all this with all due respect to your opinion, ArArArchStanton. By the way, I'm also a fan of TGTBATU. I didn't say it made it better necessarily. I said it gave it more substance. When looking back on the film what about it will have mattered? I'm not sure there's all that much, and that's all I'm saying.
Glad to you know you love TGTB&TU, one of the very greatest ever IMO. Love me some Tuco.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 5, 2017 20:45:44 GMT
It's good first of all, I gave it a 7, which if you know anything about my scoring system a 9 is perfect and 10 is perfect plus your personal taste. 8 is extremely good. 7 is good, 6 is enjoyable, 5 is nothing special nothing terrible, 4 is not so good, 3 is bad, 2 is terrible, 1 is fucking awful, and 0 is the worst shit possible. For comparison I gave MOS a 4 for large sections of 5 and several moments of 3. But here's the thing, Not all that much happens in WW. She decides to go after Ares, they walk through a battle field, she finds him, the end. It's like there's no meat on the bone. Nothing to really carry forward or explore or reflect on in much of any way. It just is what it is. Compare that to First Avenger where you had all sorts of things to build on, from Shield to Hydra to Vibranium to the Tesseract to Peggy Carter to the Winter Soldier, and there was a lot of meat to explore in the future of the MCU. But the DCU isn't going to get any mileage out of anything they developed in WW. I think I heard the Amazons are going to be seen in a flashback in JL. Is that it? So without anything to build on, even though it is the best of the DCU films so far, it's not really all that relevant to anything that is going to happen later. Can you really see any Civil War types moments happening where it made a lot of the prior films better, happening to WW? I don't really see how. WW is a bit overrated and it will not age as memorably as some of the MCU greats like Avengers, TWS, CW or Gotg. It will, however, be more memorable than CA TFA. I realize that some people do like that movie but for the greater population, it's one of MCU's more forgettable films. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jul 5, 2017 20:55:50 GMT
WW is a bit overrated and it will not age as memorably as some of the MCU greats like Avengers, TWS, CW or Gotg. It will, however, be more memorable than CA TFA. I realize that some people do like that movie but for the greater population, it's one of MCU's more forgettable films. I'd argue that's because the MCU has so many great films, whereas WW by default is the best DCU film, so I'm not sure it would remain nearly as memorable if they ever got to the level the MCU has. I'm not even sure it deserves all the first female star hype since there are dozens of female led sci fi action and even comic book films out there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 2:04:09 GMT
For fuck sake, dude. You are obsessed with WW! Let it go!  |
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 3, 2018 21:20:50 GMT
I already don't want to see it again and I have only seen it once.  |
|
|
|
Post by MooseNugget on Jun 3, 2018 22:03:03 GMT
I could watch it again but it was certainly overrated. I get the hype but at the end of the day all it has going for it is that it was the best DCEU movie so far and that's not saying very much.
Right now it's rated 7.5 on IMDB which isn't far off from my 6/10 rating.
When it came out it seemed to me people were treating this movie like it was some kind of transformative film when really it's more of a flash in the pan.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jun 4, 2018 0:32:45 GMT
I already don't want to see it again and I have only seen it once. A lot of other people didn’t seem to mind seeing it more than once, considering how good its legs at the box office were. |
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 4, 2018 1:22:55 GMT
I already don't want to see it again and I have only seen it once. A lot of other people didn’t seem to mind seeing it more than once, considering how good its legs at the box office were. American audiences are more easily swayed by political issues than the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 4, 2018 10:39:29 GMT
If Wonder Woman was an MCU film, Stanton would have given it a 9/10.
This is the same dude who tried desperately to get me to like Thor: The Dark World.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 4, 2018 15:32:21 GMT
If Wonder Woman was an MCU film, Stanton would have given it a 9/10. This is the same dude who tried desperately to get me to like Thor: The Dark World. Yep. That irritated me too. He was baffled by my enjoyment of The Dark Knight Rises which for all its problems is a FAR superior film than Thor: The Dark World. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 16:33:48 GMT
If Wonder Woman was an MCU film, Stanton would have given it a 9/10. This is the same dude who tried desperately to get me to like Thor: The Dark World. Yup. The hypocrisy of ArArArchie Stanman was legendary! |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 4, 2018 16:41:24 GMT
If Wonder Woman was an MCU film, Stanton would have given it a 9/10. This is the same dude who tried desperately to get me to like Thor: The Dark World. Yup. The hypocrisy of ArArArchie Stanman was legendary! It's the catch-22 with ArArArchStanton. As entertaining as he was, he also displayed some of the worst tendencies from MCU fans. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 16:57:07 GMT
Yup. The hypocrisy of ArArArchie Stanman was legendary! It's the catch-22 with ArArArchStanton. As entertaining as he was, he also displayed some of the worst tendencies from MCU fans. Indeed! |
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Jun 5, 2018 2:43:51 GMT
Yup. The hypocrisy of ArArArchie Stanman was legendary! It's the catch-22 with ArArArchStanton. As entertaining as he was, he also displayed some of the worst tendencies from MCU fans. That's why it was entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 5, 2018 20:52:42 GMT
Yup. The hypocrisy of ArArArchie Stanman was legendary! It's the catch-22 with ArArArchStanton. As entertaining as he was, he also displayed some of the worst tendencies from MCU fans. Even other MCU fans got into arguments with Arch. That's got to be telling. |
|
Excellent post! ArArArchStanton just got owned! Another failed thread by ArArArchStanton!
