Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 1:51:34 GMT
Er, if you cut Bucky's screen time any, he becomes less sympathetic in The Winter Soldier. And Peggy is the love interest. And Howard Stark and Tommy Lee Jones were both in the film exactly as much as they needed to be. The Red Skull is a pantomime villain through and through. He was as memorable as he needed to be and as deep as he needed to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Nov 5, 2017 1:51:41 GMT
@weirdraptor Captain America wouldn't have had to give up any screentime. Other characters could have instead like Peggy, Bucky, Howard Stark, Tommy Lee Jones character etc. poelzig No which is why I deleted it. I was hoping to have got to it before you saw it. There will be no squabbling though so they'll all be deleted if there not on topic. Thank you. That is more than fair my friend. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 5, 2017 2:00:43 GMT
Er, if you cut Bucky's screen time any, he becomes less sympathetic in The Winter Soldier. And Peggy is the love interest. And Howard Stark and Tommy Lee Jones were both in the film exactly as much as they needed to be. The Red Skull is a pantomime villain through and through. He was as memorable as he needed to be and as deep as he needed to be. Right but that's making excuses for everything. Plenty of other superhero movies were able to balance out the screentime just fine between the hero, the villain and the supporting cast. Spider-man 2 did it just fine. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 2:03:30 GMT
Er, if you cut Bucky's screen time any, he becomes less sympathetic in The Winter Soldier. And Peggy is the love interest. And Howard Stark and Tommy Lee Jones were both in the film exactly as much as they needed to be. The Red Skull is a pantomime villain through and through. He was as memorable as he needed to be and as deep as he needed to be. Right but that's making excuses for everything. Plenty of other superhero movies were able to balance out the screentime just fine between the hero, the villain and the supporting cast. Spider-man 2 did it just fine. Nope, not excuses. Everyone in The First Avenger was on screen as much as they needed to be. Spider-Man 2 sucked and so did its villain. The MCU balances everything fine. Also, I love how you fall back on saying I'm just making excuses whenever I disagree with you. You're quick to point out what you deem to be my bad habits, while you have plenty of your own. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 5, 2017 2:04:11 GMT
Er, if you cut Bucky's screen time any, he becomes less sympathetic in The Winter Soldier. And Peggy is the love interest. And Howard Stark and Tommy Lee Jones were both in the film exactly as much as they needed to be. The Red Skull is a pantomime villain through and through. He was as memorable as he needed to be and as deep as he needed to be. Right but that's making excuses for everything. Plenty of other superhero movies were able to balance out the screentime just fine between the hero, the villain and the supporting cast. Spider-man 2 did it just fine. But still, that note though... |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 5, 2017 2:12:19 GMT
Right but that's making excuses for everything. Plenty of other superhero movies were able to balance out the screentime just fine between the hero, the villain and the supporting cast. Spider-man 2 did it just fine. Nope, not excuses. Everyone in The First Avenger was on screen as much as they needed to be. Spider-Man 2 sucked and so did its villain. The MCU balances everything fine. Also, I love how you fall back on saying I'm just making excuses whenever I disagree with you. You're quick to point out what you deem to be my bad habits, while you have plenty of your own. Well it is an excuse. I could name every other character in that movie and you'd make an excuse of how they were all in it for the proper amount of time because of reasons. Red Skull needed the screentime. Not the other unimportant side characters. Spider-man 2 was critically acclaimed and a vastly better movie than Captain America and Doctor Octopus at least stands out and had ample screentime and depth while also giving the appropriate amount to an appropriate amount of side character. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 2:14:44 GMT
Nope, not excuses. Everyone in The First Avenger was on screen as much as they needed to be. Spider-Man 2 sucked and so did its villain. The MCU balances everything fine. Also, I love how you fall back on saying I'm just making excuses whenever I disagree with you. You're quick to point out what you deem to be my bad habits, while you have plenty of your own. Well it is an excuse. I could name every other character in that movie and you'd make an excuse of how they were all in it for the proper amount of time because of reasons. Red Skull needed the screentime. Not the other unimportant side characters. Spider-man 2 was critically acclaimed and a vastly better movie than Captain America and Doctor Octopus at least stands out and had ample screentime and depth while also giving the appropriate amount to an appropriate amount of side character. Nope. No excuses. That's because every character in the movie had the exact right amount of screen time. Red Skull had enough screen time. Spider-man 2 is a overrated, sappy piece of crap. Captain America is way better. Doc Ock stood out in NO way, shape, or form and he had no depth. Just angst they made up for his character. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 5, 2017 2:50:34 GMT
Well it is an excuse. I could name every other character in that movie and you'd make an excuse of how they were all in it for the proper amount of time because of reasons. Red Skull needed the screentime. Not the other unimportant side characters. Spider-man 2 was critically acclaimed and a vastly better movie than Captain America and Doctor Octopus at least stands out and had ample screentime and depth while also giving the appropriate amount to an appropriate amount of side character. Nope. No excuses. That's because every character in the movie had the exact right amount of screen time. Red Skull had enough screen time. Spider-man 2 is a overrated, sappy piece of crap. Captain America is way better. Doc Ock stood out in NO way, shape, or form and he had no depth. Just angst they made up for his character. This proves what I've been saying for a long time:
1. MCU movies are crap because MCU villains are so weak.
2. MCU fans not only hate DC movies, MCU fans hate anything that isn't made by MCU, including Spider-Man 2, which is universally regarded as the best Spider-Man movie ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 5, 2017 3:15:26 GMT
They're not dominated by their villain at all Practically everything in the Batman movies is due to the villains being proactive and the heroes doing nothing but being purely reactive. He's not deep or complex at all though, the only thing going for him was being portrayed by Alan Rickman. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 5, 2017 3:16:18 GMT
The only reason people can say that is because the MCU people were nice enough to let us know about movies in advance so we know the heroes will survive. Naturally instead of appreciating this, people just complain. Yes it's much better when there is no tension or uncertainty in a movie. Same reason the villains always have to be weak, forgettable and silly. Can't have the audience scared and sobbing because something happened they were not expecting. Please, if you honestly think they're going to destroy the world or kill off the entire cast in any CBM you're dreaming. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 5, 2017 3:17:29 GMT
It's really simple. MCU always has the villains not steal the show because Their movies are about their heroes and not their villains. And they don't subscribe to that silly "A hero is only as good as the villain" nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 5, 2017 3:18:41 GMT
Er, if you cut Bucky's screen time any, he becomes less sympathetic in The Winter Soldier. And Peggy is the love interest. And Howard Stark and Tommy Lee Jones were both in the film exactly as much as they needed to be. The Red Skull is a pantomime villain through and through. He was as memorable as he needed to be and as deep as he needed to be. Right but that's making excuses for everything. Plenty of other superhero movies were able to balance out the screentime just fine between the hero, the villain and the supporting cast. Spider-man 2 did it just fine. Eh, SM2 had its problems. Useless padding, Dr Ock's character being a cop-out with the "Arms controlling him" thing, a weak third act, MJ in general... |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 5, 2017 3:47:10 GMT
formersamhmd1. Yeah that's how many superheroes go. The superhero goes about his day to day life until a villain shows up and does something evil causing the hero to have to deal with it. 2. Hans Gruber didn't have to be deep or complex. That's not why we was considered such a fantastic villain. His performance was pretty much top tier, making him an iconic and memorable movie villain that will stand the test of time. No MCU villain really compares to that again except for Loki at a push. 3. Of course Spider-man 2 had its problems. It's still a fantastic movie though. It didn't follow the same old formula the MCU movies follow. It had a heavy focus on Peter Parker as well and his own conflicts. His complex and unique relationships with several other characters. Fantastic action sequences. A great score. It was funny without it being a constant thing etc.
|
|
TheHiawatha
Sophomore
@thehiawatha
Posts: 118
Likes: 35
 
|
Post by TheHiawatha on Nov 5, 2017 3:56:20 GMT
formersamhmd And the original X-men movies, Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever, Superman, Superman 2, Man of Steel, The Dark Knight trilogy and more. Plenty of the superhero movies have done it. I don't even mean just superhero movies either. Look at Die Hard for example. Red Skull and Kaecilius were pretty plain and forgettable. Hela at least had personality but again she's never gonna be a memorable villain. I wouldn't be so sure on "Man of Steel," "Superman," and "Batman Forever." Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor hasn't really seemed to have made an impression in the long run. "Batman Forever" was widely despised, and Carrey's Riddler was pretty much considered a joke. "Man of Steel" seems to have gotten a somewhat mixed response on General Zod. The Dark Knight Trilogy had a good track record, but the Joker, Bane, and Two-Face are the ones from that series who still seem to be talked about. Ra's al-Ghul, Falcone, Talia al-Ghul, etc seem to have been forgotten or not really cared for. The X-Men really just has Magneto. Stryker was fine, but he doesn't really seem to have made an impression in the long run (basically like TDK Trilogy's Ra's al-Ghul, good portrayal but not iconic). I think the villains who tend to stand out the most are the ones who are pretty much supporting characters or co-leads than when they are straight-up villains. Loki, Heath Ledger's and Jack Nicholson's Jokers, Magneto, Doc Oc, Terrance Stamp's General Zod, Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman, and Vulture are perfect examples. "Die Hard" basically made Hans Gruber a co-lead with John McClane. In DBZ, Vegeta pretty much shared the lead with Goku, and Lord Frieza was a major supporting character throughout the first three seasons and was an omipresent threat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 4:17:06 GMT
Nope, not excuses. Everyone in The First Avenger was on screen as much as they needed to be. Spider-Man 2 sucked and so did its villain. The MCU balances everything fine. Also, I love how you fall back on saying I'm just making excuses whenever I disagree with you. You're quick to point out what you deem to be my bad habits, while you have plenty of your own. Well it is an excuse. I could name every other character in that movie and you'd make an excuse of how they were all in it for the proper amount of time because of reasons. Red Skull needed the screentime. Not the other unimportant side characters. Spider-man 2 was critically acclaimed and a vastly better movie than Captain America and Doctor Octopus at least stands out and had ample screentime and depth while also giving the appropriate amount to an appropriate amount of side character. I also love how you say Bucky's scenes should have been cut. Seriously? You cite Cap's sequel as one of the best MCU films and The Winter Soldier as one of its better villains, yet you are woefully unaware that Bucky being developed well and made likeable in the first film is key to all that. We needed to care about Bucky by the time of Winter Soldier in order to... well, care. The Winter Soldier becomes a less effective film if we don't give a damn about Bucky. And asking for Peggy Carter's scenes to be cut is just unreasonable considering what an awesome character she is. Not to mention her scene in The Winter Soldier at the retirement home loses its edge if we're given less of a reason to care about her. So does her funeral. Howard Stark also requires development considering his role is the greater timeline. Part of the reason the reveal in Civil War had as much kick to it is because we also like Howard Stark from his appearance in The First Avenger and the Peggy Carter series. And as for Tommy Lee Jones: he plays a military officer in a war film. You can't exactly get rid of him. Sorry, but all their scenes needed to stay. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 5, 2017 5:14:57 GMT
Like I mentioned before, there are very very few movies that were able to have both a great hero and a great villain.
In fact when I think about it, I think only Spiderman 2 managed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 5, 2017 5:18:40 GMT
Well it is an excuse. I could name every other character in that movie and you'd make an excuse of how they were all in it for the proper amount of time because of reasons. Red Skull needed the screentime. Not the other unimportant side characters. Spider-man 2 was critically acclaimed and a vastly better movie than Captain America and Doctor Octopus at least stands out and had ample screentime and depth while also giving the appropriate amount to an appropriate amount of side character. I also love how you say Bucky's scenes should have been cut. Seriously? You cite Cap's sequel as one of the best MCU films and The Winter Soldier as one of its better villains, yet you are woefully unaware that Bucky being developed well and made likeable in the first film is key to all that. We needed to care about Bucky by the time of Winter Soldier in to... well, care. The Winter Soldier becomes a less effective film if we don't give a damn about Bucky. And asking for Peggy Carter's scenes to be cut is just unreasonable considering what an awesome character she is. Not to mention her scene in The Winter Soldier at the retirement home loses its edge if we're given less of a reason to care about her. So does her funeral. Howard Stark also requires development considering his role is the greater timeline. Part of the reason the reveal in Civil War had as much kick to it is because we also like Howard Stark from his appearance in The First Avenger and the Peggy Carter series. And as for Tommy Lee Jones: he plays a military officer in a war film. You can't exactly get rid of him. Sorry, but all their scenes needed to stay. Iconic villain performances don't come from the story, script or even the director - they come from actors. It's hard to blame the MCU if there aren't that many actors in Hollywood who can turn in an iconic villain performance. That's why they're considered ICONIC - because not many people can do them. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 5, 2017 5:19:43 GMT
Well it is an excuse. I could name every other character in that movie and you'd make an excuse of how they were all in it for the proper amount of time because of reasons. Red Skull needed the screentime. Not the other unimportant side characters. Spider-man 2 was critically acclaimed and a vastly better movie than Captain America and Doctor Octopus at least stands out and had ample screentime and depth while also giving the appropriate amount to an appropriate amount of side character. Howard Stark also requires development considering his role is the greater timeline. Part of the reason the reveal in Civil War had as much kick to it is because we also like Howard Stark from his appearance in The First Avenger and the Peggy Carter series. Howard Stark didn't require any development. And nobody except MCU fans, who love terrorists, liked Howard Stark. Howard Stark was nothing but a terrorist. He built weapons of mass destruction and stored them in his private vault. If DHS existed in the 1940s, DHS would've arrested Stark for storing weapons of mass destruction in his private vault.
What kind of citizen builds and stores weapons of mass destruction in his private vault? Only a terrorist would do that. Howard Stark was a terrorist, and only MCU fans (who love terrorists) like Howard Stark.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2017 5:21:32 GMT
I also love how you say Bucky's scenes should have been cut. Seriously? You cite Cap's sequel as one of the best MCU films and The Winter Soldier as one of its better villains, yet you are woefully unaware that Bucky being developed well and made likeable in the first film is key to all that. We needed to care about Bucky by the time of Winter Soldier in to... well, care. The Winter Soldier becomes a less effective film if we don't give a damn about Bucky. And asking for Peggy Carter's scenes to be cut is just unreasonable considering what an awesome character she is. Not to mention her scene in The Winter Soldier at the retirement home loses its edge if we're given less of a reason to care about her. So does her funeral. Howard Stark also requires development considering his role is the greater timeline. Part of the reason the reveal in Civil War had as much kick to it is because we also like Howard Stark from his appearance in The First Avenger and the Peggy Carter series. And as for Tommy Lee Jones: he plays a military officer in a war film. You can't exactly get rid of him. Sorry, but all their scenes needed to stay. Iconic villain performances don't come from the story, script or even the director - they come from actors. It's hard to blame the MCU if there aren't that many actors in Hollywood who can turn in an iconic villain performance. That's why they're considered ICONIC - because not many people can do them. And The Red Skull is a pretty stereotypical "BWA HA HA I'm EVIL" type of character, anyway. Honestly, Weaving's performance was downright subdued compared to what it could have been. The Red Skull isn't a deep or nuanced character. I mean, look at him. He doesn't lend himself to layers or complex characterization. He really is a melodramatic villain if there ever was one. Asking for him to get more screen time to become a more fleshed out character is just missing the point of The Red Skull altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 5, 2017 5:21:51 GMT
Like I mentioned before, there are very very few movies that were able to have both a great hero and a great villain. In fact when I think about it, I think only Spiderman 2 managed it. I wouldn't count Spider-Man 2. Gladiator - all day every day. |
|
