|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 17:55:02 GMT
^trolling
Edited to add: for real; you have contributed nothing to this, unlike weirdraptor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 17:56:14 GMT
Point made. Now I can GUARANTEE that coldenhaulfield is sitting in his mothers basement raging at his laptop. This is why it always pays to take the time to make more specific posts when treading so close to fan favorites like Gruber.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 17:56:47 GMT
^trolling Edited to add: for real; you have contributed nothing to this, unlike weirdraptor. Did you just admit something good about me?
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 17:58:04 GMT
Point made. Now I can GUARANTEE that coldenhaulfield is sitting in his mothers basement raging at his laptop. This is why it always pays to take the time to make more specific posts when treading so close to fan favorites like Gruber.What are you raving and jabbering about? The Gruber character isn't as one-dimensional as an MCU villain just because you say so, and even if he was by your own admission he was played by an iconic actor who could make even the simplest roles legendary. Can't say the same for the McMarvel McVillains. You proved nothing.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 17:59:02 GMT
^trolling Edited to add: for real; you have contributed nothing to this, unlike weirdraptor. Did you just admit something good about me? Of course. "Though I may not agree with what you say... defend to the death your right to say it..." Voltaire and all that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 18:03:28 GMT
This is why it always pays to take the time to make more specific posts when treading so close to fan favorites like Gruber.What are you raving and jabbering about? The Gruber character isn't as one-dimensional as an MCU villain just because you say so, and even if he was by your own admission he was played by an iconic actor who could make even the simplest roles legendary. Can't say the same for the McMarvel McVillains. You proved nothing. How is Gruber NOT as one-dimensional as MCU villains? Everything about the man is fake and superficial (an intentional creative decision by the filmmakers, not a jab at the film). "he was played by an iconic actor who could make even the simplest roles legendary." Since when is Robert Redford not an iconic actor? Or Jeff Bridges? Or James Spader? And Mads Mickelsen is proving to be quite the modern icon, himself. So... Then there's Tim Roth, William Hurt, Mickey Rourke, Tom Hiddleston (who is now a star thanks to Loki in a similar vein to Rickman), Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, and Christopher Eccleston, all of whom are fantastic actors on par with Rickman.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 18:08:26 GMT
What are you raving and jabbering about? The Gruber character isn't as one-dimensional as an MCU villain just because you say so, and even if he was by your own admission he was played by an iconic actor who could make even the simplest roles legendary. Can't say the same for the McMarvel McVillains. You proved nothing. How is Gruber NOT as one-dimensional as MCU villains? Everything about the man is fake and superficial (an intentional creative decision by the filmmakers, not a jab at the film). "he was played by an iconic actor who could make even the simplest roles legendary." Since when is Robert Redford not an iconic actor? Or Jeff Bridges? Or James Spader? And Mads Mickelsen is proving to be quite the modern icon, himself. So... Then there's Tim Roth, William Hurt, Mickey Rourke, Tom Hiddleston (who is now a star thanks to Loki in a similar vein to Rickman), Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, and Christopher Eccleston, all of whom are fantastic actors on par with Rickman. Hacks, the whole lot of them. Except Redford, Bridges, Spader, Roth, Hurt, Rourke, Hiddleston, Weaving, Pearce, Kingsley, and Eccleston. Those ones are pretty good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 18:13:50 GMT
...You just listed Mads Mikkelsen as a hack. And you didn't my question.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 18:15:08 GMT
...You just listed Mads Mikkelsen as a hack. And you didn't my question. I don't even know who "Mads Mikkelsen" is! What question? Edit: oh, about Hans? I dunno. It's been like a decade since I've seen the first Die Hard, or whenever the fourth one came out. He's probably every bit as one-dimensional as any MCU villain and more so than Loki. I still don't see why this is a good thing for the MCU, especially when the grand finale (the two-part movie, whatever it's called -- Infinity Gauntlet?) is predicated on putting over Thanos as both super fucking strong and at least fairly interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 18:21:11 GMT
Die Hard is hailed as a classic, and it's villain, intentionally superficial and fake as he is, is beloved along with it. How is that a bad thing if the Marvel villains are similar to him? Just like Die hard, the HEROES are the stars of the MCU films, not the villains. Like Gruber, the villains are there when they need to be and they service the plot, not dominant it.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 18:36:10 GMT
Die Hard is hailed as a classic, and it's villain, intentionally superficial and fake as he is, is beloved along with it. How is that a bad thing if the Marvel villains are similar to him? Just like Die hard, the HEROES are the stars of the MCU films, not the villains. Like Gruber, the villains are there when they need to be and they service the plot, not dominant it. It isn't. But it wouldn't it be even stronger if the villain were more multidimensional and "interesting"? I don't think that's an unfair standard or expectation, or even an unfair "criticism" if one wants to go that far. For instance, even though I really, really like Ian McKellen's Magneto in the first FoX-Men movie and find him to be perfectly capable of "servicing the plot," he's considerably less interesting to me than, say, Fassbender's version in X-Men: First Class. (How I would've supplemented your argument to strengthen it would've been to point out that the emphasis on the heroes transcends any one movie because it's a series of movies about these same characters, whereas the villains -- save Loki, it seems -- sort of come and go, so it's not only natural but incumbent on the producers to give the bulk of those "expository" character moments to, say, Black Widow instead of... whoever the bad guy was in the Edward Norton Hulk. That chick's dad? I was kind of expecting you to build to that rebuttal when you started talking about villains, but it never came.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 18:51:08 GMT
Die Hard is hailed as a classic, and it's villain, intentionally superficial and fake as he is, is beloved along with it. How is that a bad thing if the Marvel villains are similar to him? Just like Die hard, the HEROES are the stars of the MCU films, not the villains. Like Gruber, the villains are there when they need to be and they service the plot, not dominant it. It isn't. But it wouldn't it be even stronger if the villain were more multidimensional and "interesting"? I don't think that's an unfair standard or expectation, or even an unfair "criticism" if one wants to go that far. For instance, even though I really, really like Ian McKellen's Magneto in the first FoX-Men movie and find him to be perfectly capable of "servicing the plot," he's considerably less interesting to me than, say, Fassbender's version in X-Men: First Class. (How I would've supplemented your argument to strengthen it would've been to point out that the emphasis on the heroes transcends any one movie because it's a series of movies about these same characters, whereas the villains (save Loki, it seems) sort of come and go, so it's not only natural but incumbent on the producers to give the bulk of those "expository" character moments to, say, Black Widow instead of... whoever the bad guy was in the Edward Norton Hulk. That chick's dad? I was kind of expecting you to build to that rebuttal when you started talking about villains, but it never came.) Do you have any idea how much screentime the heroes would have to give up in order make the villains more "interesting?" These are two hour/two-and-a-half hour films. There's only so much time to go around, and Marvel has chosen to focus on what makes its heroes tick. If these films were a TV series, instead, I'd agree with you, but they're not. When you have a two/2-and-a-half hours to tell a story, SOMETHING has to give and Marvel has chosen not to make their heroes boring ciphers playing second fiddle to more colorful villains. I've mentioned this before, but that's the problem I had with Burton's Batman films. I barely felt like I got to know his Bruce Wayne/Batman, because either The Joker or the Penguin and Catwoman ate up so much of the screentime there wasn't nearly enough left over to explore Brucie's tortured psyche. The Incredible Hulk had two villains: Ross and Blonsky. One was a looming threat that controlled the puppet strings throughout the film while the other was a physical threat enabled by the former. So in the end, Ross the true villain, because Blonsky would have just remained a soldier, business as usual if he hadn't gotten tangled up in Banner and Ross's web.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 19:34:16 GMT
It isn't. But it wouldn't it be even stronger if the villain were more multidimensional and "interesting"? I don't think that's an unfair standard or expectation, or even an unfair "criticism" if one wants to go that far. For instance, even though I really, really like Ian McKellen's Magneto in the first FoX-Men movie and find him to be perfectly capable of "servicing the plot," he's considerably less interesting to me than, say, Fassbender's version in X-Men: First Class. (How I would've supplemented your argument to strengthen it would've been to point out that the emphasis on the heroes transcends any one movie because it's a series of movies about these same characters, whereas the villains (save Loki, it seems) sort of come and go, so it's not only natural but incumbent on the producers to give the bulk of those "expository" character moments to, say, Black Widow instead of... whoever the bad guy was in the Edward Norton Hulk. That chick's dad? I was kind of expecting you to build to that rebuttal when you started talking about villains, but it never came.) Do you have any idea how much screentime the heroes would have to give up in order make the villains more "interesting?" These are two hour/two-and-a-half hour films. There's only so much time to go around, and Marvel has chosen to focus on what makes its heroes tick. If these films were a TV series, instead, I'd agree with you, but they're not. When you have a two/2-and-a-half hours to tell a story, SOMETHING has to give and Marvel has chosen not to make their heroes boring ciphers playing second fiddle to more colorful villains. I've mentioned this before, but that's the problem I had with Burton's Batman films. I barely felt like I got to know his Bruce Wayne/Batman, because either The Joker or the Penguin and Catwoman ate up so much of the screentime there wasn't nearly enough left over to explore Brucie's tortured psyche.The Incredible Hulk had two villains: Ross and Blonsky. One was a looming threat that controlled the puppet strings throughout the film while the other was a physical threat enabled by the former. So in the end, Ross the true villain, because Blonsky would have just remained a soldier, business as usual if he hadn't gotten tangled up in Banner and Ross's web. I guess it's just a matter of personal preference. I loved Keaton's Batman/Bruce as a kind of hard-boiled Hemingway hero acting as a straight man against his crazy antagonists. And I liked that they intimated and hinted at how fucked up Bruce Wayne is as a person without delving deeply into it because it worked for me in the context of those films. This will surely be considered blasphemy and be roundly mocked, but I liked the Ang Lee Hulk better than the second one by a slim margin. It was unconventional, interesting at times, and seemed to have better pacing. The second one was more consistently competent and far less hokey but somehow bored me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 19:39:40 GMT
And then there's me, who prefers to follow Bruce on his personal journey, like the first two Nolan films. The good ones.
I didn't hate the Ang Lee Hulk, either, and thought it got unfairly lambasted, myself. It wasn't great, but it certainly wasn't worth all the hate it gets. I don't like The Incredible Hulk better, but I thought it was just as good.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 19:44:50 GMT
And then there's me, who prefers to follow Bruce on his personal journey, like the first two Nolan films. The good ones. I didn't hate the Ang Lee Hulk, either, and thought it got unfairly lambasted, myself. It wasn't great, but it certainly wasn't worth all the hate it gets. I don't like The Incredible Hulk better, but I thought it was just as good. See, we differ here too. I think Batman Begins is the best of the Nolan films by far and had the exact same criticism you did of the Burton ones of TDK -- that Ledger was sort of too cute by half, took me out of the film, and that between the Harvey arc and the Joker stuff we barely got any Batman and almost no Bruce, and this bothered me in a way it didn't with the Burton movies because Nolan had set such a high bar for the Bruce Wayne character in the first installment. Nuances within nuances, I suppose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 20:02:08 GMT
Again, I agree. I thought Batman Begins was the best, too. I think part of the problem with The Dark Knight was Harvey Dent should have been in Batman Begins, so his arc could have been spread over two films. Personally, I'd have made HIM Bruce's childhood friend and then made Bruce's ex and Harvey's current squeeze Vicky Vale. Okay, yeah, that adds about ten-fifteen minutes worth of film to introduce her and show her taking those photos, but you're expected to have a decent sit for a Batman film. She could have been the one to get photo evidence to get leverage of that corrupt judge and such while Batman gathers the more dangerous evidence. Plus, if you have Harvey be the one who gets gassed by The Scarecrow, that easily becomes the slow birth of Two-Face which would take place over the course of the last act of Begins and the sequel. AND, I wouldn't have killed Two-Face at the end of TDK. I'd have loved to have seen the third film have a gang war between Two-Face and Bane's rival gangs tearing Gotham apart. And Bane had no business being connected with The League of Shadows, or not being Hispanic. He's a much bigger threat is he storms in as a big upstart who figures out Bruce is The Batman on his own like he did in the comics and then tries to take control of Gotham's criminal underworld while Bats is licking his wounds from having his ass kicked by him.
Not to mention I'd have cut that whole sequence Batman chases a Chinese man back to his home country and kidnaps him. There is no reason for that guy's arrest to not have happened at the airport. In that screentime's place, something more related to Bruce's character could have been substituted.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 20:20:32 GMT
Again, I agree. I thought Batman Begins was the best, too. I think part of the problem with The Dark Knight was Harvey Dent should have been in Batman Begins, so his arc could have been spread over two films. Personally, I'd have made HIM Bruce's childhood friend and then made Bruce's ex and Harvey's current squeeze Vicky Vale. Okay, yeah, that adds about ten-fifteen minutes worth of film to introduce her and show her taking those photos, but you're expected to have a decent sit for a Batman film. She could have been the one to get photo evidence to get leverage of that corrupt judge and such while Batman gathers the more dangerous evidence. Plus, if you have Harvey be the one who gets gassed by The Scarecrow, that easily becomes the slow birth of Two-Face which would take place over the course of the last act of Begins and the sequel. AND, I wouldn't have killed Two-Face at the end of TDK. I'd have loved to have seen the third film have a gang war between Two-Face and Bane's rival gangs tearing Gotham apart. And Bane had no business being connected with The League of Shadows, or not being Hispanic. He's a much bigger threat is he storms in as a big upstart who figures out Bruce is The Batman on his own like he did in the comics and then tries to take control of Gotham's criminal underworld while Bats is licking his wounds from having his ass kicked by him. Not to mention I'd have cut that whole sequence Batman chases a Chinese man back to his home country and kidnaps him. There is no reason for that guy's arrest to not have happened at the airport. In that screentime's place, something more related to Bruce's character could have been substituted. Yeah, Harvey and the hot-shotting of EVERYTHING from his introduction to his turn and demise are the weakest points of TDK for me. They could've done any one of the things you suggested, and it would have felt more organic, particularly stretching it across (at minimum) two of the three movies, although I would've preferred him to've been introduced in Begins as Harvey, turn during the course (or at the end) of Dark Knight, and then play a major antagonist role in the third film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 20:26:43 GMT
Pretty much, yeah. Even the Burton films introduced Dent long, long before he was ever supposed to become Two-Face. And the rest is cinematic tragedy once Schumachar took over.
You can tell the death of Heath Ledger just completely pulled the rug out from under everyone involved in the Nolan trilogy. "I think we were destined to do this forever," being of The Joker's last lines, so you can tell they were banking on Ledger being around for the third and final installment. I have no idea why they didn't just cut that line and reshoot it to have Dent simply disappear into the Gotham underworld. What I'd like to know is if they even ASKED Eckhart if he wanted to renegotiate to be the third one.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 23, 2017 20:33:45 GMT
Pretty much, yeah. Even the Burton films introduced Dent long, long before he was ever supposed to become Two-Face. And the rest is cinematic tragedy once Schumachar took over. You can tell the death of Heath Ledger just completely pulled the rug out from under everyone involved in the Nolan trilogy. "I think we were destined to do this forever," being of The Joker's last lines, so you can tell they were banking on Ledger being around for the third and final installment. I have no idea why they didn't just cut that line and reshoot it to have Dent simply disappear into the Gotham underworld. What I'd like to know is if they even ASKED Eckhart if he wanted to renegotiate to be the third one. It would've been interesting to see Lando Calrissian as Two-Face, if they'd kept him. Couldn't've been any worse than poor Tommy Lee Jones. WB/DC hasn't recovered from Ledger's death, is the brutal truth. His shadow looms large over everything they've done since. From a pragmatic standpoint, though, that's an interesting point: regardless of the original script, after tragically losing Ledger, you would think a quick rewrite of Eckhart's character would be almost automatic. Which begs the question as to whether they even asked him, but given the circumstances I can't imagine him saying no.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 20:40:47 GMT
Why was Williams recast, by the way? I was never clear on that.
I recall they even postponed the release of The Dark Knight. At the time, I assumed they WERE rewriting and adjusting things to accommodate for his tragic passing, but then I watched the film and realized they'd done nothing of the sort. Still killing Dent, Joker's line about fighting Batman forever, I almost couldn't believe they'd left either of those things in. I can't imagine Eckhart refusing them, either, and it's not like he's a super-expensive actor.
|
|