Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:57:00 GMT
The thing about Derrickson's other films is their visual style and heavy Sci-Fi or supernatural angle. Like "Sinister" 1&2. Derrickson is able to put all kinds of odd things on screen and make them look good. Any shortcomings to be had with any past films of his would lie in the script, but since this is Marvel Studios, we knew he'd be working with a decent script.
See the part I have in bold. Those were the key elements that made Winter Soldier and Civil War work. That's why they were hired for those films. Perhaps not specifically because they had ever done a political thriller, but they have proven they're good story-tellers who can do a lot with whatever resources they're given.
As for opinions: yes, they can be wrong when they come from a place of ignorance or cynicism. Those "credible" critics didn't understand the movie they were watching if they think The Accords are just window dressing. The film ends with The Avengers thoroughly divided over the issue and they're going to continue being divided over it throughout the whole of Phase 3 until they're FORCED to work together again by Thanos. Even then, there are going to be hurt feelings and divided opinions when they return home. So you really think The Accords won't be a factor in Spider-Man: Homecoming, Avengers: Infinity War, Ant-Man and Wasp, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther? What we saw in CA: Civil War is only the beginning of the divide and the ramifications of UN's decison to rein in The Avengers. This is a plot element that is going to extend to other films. Just because there isn't a resolution to The Accords subplot YET doesn't mean it was meaningless window dressing. Give Feige and his creative team credit, okay.
Yes, actually, when I first heard they were directing Winter Soldier, I was psyched, because I thought they'd be perfect, and they were.
They're not interchangeable. If they were, why did Kenneth Branagh make a good Thor movie but Alan Taylor made a mediocre one? If they're interchangeable, why was Joe Johnston replaced by the Russos? That's because Johnston is an absolute ace as World War II period pieces. He was a perfect fit for the more optimistic and adventurous tone they were going for with Cap1, but the Russos were the better match for the plot-heavy and character-driven Cap2 and 3. Why was Joss Whedon chosen for The Avengers? Because he's good at juggling multiple characters at once, writes sharp dialogue, he's a seasoned TV writer so he's used to writing series "episodes" with both preceding and succeeding entries, and he's familiar with the source material. He was exactly who the series needed at the moment they were making The Avengers to set the stage for the rest of the MCU. Why was Kenneth Branagh hired for Thor? Because he's good at handling the Shakespeare-style dialogue depicted in Asgard and he was a perfect tonal fit for the film. He always makes everything seem big and grand, which is what a Thor film needs. And he brought Hiddleston with him.
That's good, because Snyder couldn't care less about his audience. He's the artist, and therefore right and anyone who doesn't like his work doesn't get it. He's very much from the Ayn Rand school of thought.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 22, 2017 3:14:58 GMT
The thing about Derrickson's other films is their visual style and heavy Sci-Fi or supernatural angle. Like "Sinister" 1&2. Derrickson is able to put all kinds of odd things on screen and make them look good. Any shortcomings to be had with any past films of his would lie in the script, but since this is Marvel Studios, we knew he'd be working with a decent script. See the part I have in bold. Those were the key elements that made Winter Soldier and Civil War work. That's why they were hired for those films. Perhaps not specifically because they had ever done a political thriller, but they have proven they're good story-tellers who can do a lot with whatever resources they're given. As for opinions: yes, they can be wrong when they come from a place of ignorance or cynicism. Those "credible" critics didn't understand the movie they were watching if they think The Accords are just window dressing. The film ends with The Avengers thoroughly divided over the issue and they're going to continue being divided over it throughout the whole of Phase 3 until they're FORCED to work together again by Thanos. Even then, there are going to be hurt feelings and divided opinions when they return home. So you really think The Accords won't be a factor in Spider-Man: Homecoming, Avengers: Infinity War, Ant-Man and Wasp, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther? What we saw in CA: Civil War is only the beginning of the divide and the ramifications of UN's decison to rein in The Avengers. This is a plot element that is going to extend to other films. Just because there isn't a resolution to The Accords subplot YET doesn't mean it was meaningless window dressing. Give Feige and his creative team credit, okay. Yes, actually, when I first heard they were directing Winter Soldier, I was psyched, because I thought they'd be perfect, and they were. They're not interchangeable. If they were, why did Kenneth Branagh make a good Thor movie but Alan Taylor made a mediocre one? If they're interchangeable, why was Joe Johnston replaced by the Russos? That's because Johnston is an absolute ace as World War II period pieces. He was a perfect fit for the more optimistic and adventurous tone they were going for with Cap1, but the Russos were the better match for the plot-heavy and character-driven Cap2 and 3. Why was Joss Whedon chosen for The Avengers? Because he's good at juggling multiple characters at once, writes sharp dialogue, he's a seasoned TV writer so he's used to writing series "episodes" with both preceding and succeeding entries, and he's familiar with the source material. He was exactly who the series needed at the moment they were making The Avengers to set the stage for the rest of the MCU. Why was Kenneth Branagh hired for Thor? Because he's good at handling the Shakespeare-style dialogue depicted in Asgard and he was a perfect tonal fit for the film. He always makes everything seem big and grand, which is what a Thor film needs. And he brought Hiddleston with him. That's good, because Snyder couldn't care less about his audience. He's the artist, and therefore right and anyone who doesn't like his work doesn't get it. He's very much from the Ayn Rand school of thought. derrickson.......eh, it is what it is, it's just my take on his work. wasn't too impressed by sinister (he didn't do part2, he did write it though....), his "The Day..." remake was something i disliked, and emily rose was okay, perhaps it was hyped too much. i understand why joss was chosen, his shows had a wide spectrum of color and strong characters (i'm a fan of angel), i understand why branagh was brought into thor, and johnston did cap1, but again solely going off of tone most would be and were flabbergasted why someone would get the guys who did community and you me and dupree to direct cap2. i was confused as well, but i gave them a chance since i like the show quite a lot and .....kind of like you me and dupree. when the topic of interchangeable arises, people normally mean there is a "safety net" a padding in case a director isn't up to snuff, which isn't terrible, it's just smart, but people also do feel there is a ceiling of sorts which doesn't allow for a director's touches, fingerprints to come through well enough in order to fit into a cinematic universe. that latter part i can understand where they're coming from, not saying whether or not i believe it, but i do understand that viewpoint. regarding the critic, i think he is quite legitimate, he's well spoken, well versed in film, perhaps not the genre, but he manages to express his opinions well and i respect them when they diverge from mine. and whatever zack's beliefs are on filmmaking, Ayn Rand or not, don't change my perception of him or his films. however, i will say i've seen bvs roughly twice as much as cap3 (meaning 5 vs 2), and i understand that cap3 and marvel are making very well received films, stronger films, but i'm a bit more intrigued by bvs....... sue me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 3:26:44 GMT
Of course you'd hold "You, Me, and Dupree" against the Russos, because heaven forbid anyone ever say anything nice about the MCU directors. So the DCEU filmmakers make crap films, but get endless praise from everyone because those shit films have their (middle) fingerprint. Meanwhile, the MCU directors make solid films, but since they answer to a definite boss, nothing good about the MCU films can be credited to them. Seems fair.
Their viewpoint is wrong, because they're not really looking at the film through a critical eye. I have no problem seeing the Russo touch in Winter Soldier and Civil War. "Thor" is very definitely a Kenneth Branagh film. It has HIS fingerprints all over it, just as "Guardians of the Galaxy" is probably the James Gunniest James Gunn film ever made. In fact, Gunn was even told to "make a James Gunn film" by Feige, who endlessly encouraged him. So that right there pokes all kinds of holes in that dumbass critics' argument.
Yeah, I've seen too many critics act like art snobs to respect them.
Yeah, well, Cap3 is still the highest grossing film of 2016. Sue me.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 22, 2017 3:57:14 GMT
Of course you'd hold "You, Me, and Dupree" against the Russos, because heaven forbid anyone ever say anything nice about the MCU directors. So the DCEU filmmakers make crap films, but get endless praise from everyone because those shit films have their (middle) fingerprint. Meanwhile, the MCU directors make solid films, but since they answer to a definite boss, nothing good about the MCU films can be credited to them. Seems fair. Their viewpoint is wrong, because they're not really looking at the film through a critical eye. I have no problem seeing the Russo touch in Winter Soldier and Civil War. "Thor" is very definitely a Kenneth Branagh film. It has HIS fingerprints all over it, just as "Guardians of the Galaxy" is probably the James Gunniest James Gunn film ever made. In fact, Gunn was even told to "make a James Gunn film" by Feige, who endlessly encouraged him. So that right there pokes all kinds of holes in that dumbass critics' argument. Yeah, I've seen too many critics act like art snobs to respect them. Yeah, well, Cap3 is still the highest grossing film of 2016. Sue me. ..................i liked "you me and dupree".......................................... didn't you read it? and box office is not a measurement of quality, correlation sure. you know you don't have to get so upset, you can write "calmer."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 4:07:38 GMT
Right, sorry, I didn't read the Dupree part closely enough.
The highest grossing film of any given year does tend to at least be a decent film. So in this case, yes, its box office performance DOES reflect its quality. Besides that, it's critically acclaimed and beloved by audiences everywhere. So there.
Maybe I'm just sick and tired of you DCEU fans constantly trying to come up with ways to try make the MCU seem lackluster and second rate. Every single freaking time I log here, you're all back at it, and if I say a word in defense of the MCU or criticize anything about the DCEU, you all act like I committed arson.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 22, 2017 4:25:39 GMT
Right, sorry, I didn't read the Dupree part closely enough. The highest grossing film of any given year does tend to at least be a decent film. So in this case, yes, its box office performance DOES reflect its quality. Besides that, it's critically acclaimed and beloved by audiences everywhere. So there. Maybe I'm just sick and tired of you DCEU fans constantly trying to come up with ways to try make the MCU seem lackluster and second rate. Every single freaking time I log here, you're all back at it, and if I say a word in defense of the MCU or criticize anything about the DCEU, you all act like I committed arson. but i thought you didn't respect critics!?!?! dun-dun-duunnnnn!look, it's not people want it to be lackluster (well maybe some) but maybe they're not as taken by it, they enjoy it, they like it, or sometimes they just don't care, so it may leave people wanting something "different" and maybe that different is the fox xmen-verse or the dceu.
i understand dceu fans (and/or fanatics) do their eyeroll possibly followed by pitchforks, but it's because they're accustomed to trying to defend their opinion (and you also have the occasional nutbag), because sometimes that opinion is coupled with a judgment of character, or so they feel.
so......sometimes a critique is lumped in with every other poking and prodding they've seen and return with hostility. and no offense, they probably see you as the same, they critique the mcu, share issues they may have with it, and then mcu fans (and/or fanatics) act as if they committed arson. it's all annoyingly cyclical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 4:37:39 GMT
The critic comment was for you, since you seem to hold them in higher regard. I stopped giving a crap about critics the instant I learned John Carpenter's The Thing was panned back in 1982 for not being family friendly like E.T. Seriously, what?
Yeah, but that "something different" also happens to either be incredibly repetitive (The X-Men verse, in which the same things happen in every film) or mediocre and incoherent (The DCEU). Sorry, but The MCU is the best of the three. It has the most variety and creativity, so I'm not buying the "they want something different" argument for a single second.
DC fans have no room to complain or act like the victims. They started the fandom war back on the original IMDb when they thumbed their noses at The Phase 1 MCU films and then threw a bitch fit when The Avengers hit it huge. I remember the Ironman1 boards being absolutely invaded by Nolanites, and DC constantly hammered and trolled us to the very end of the boards. Any trolling from Marvel fans from in reaction to it.
Their "issues" with the MCU are almost always poorly thought out, nitpicks at the best of times. I have no patient for people who can't read between the lines and need films to spell everything out for them.
Whereas my issues with the DCEU are very legit. I was a promised a deep and philosophical film where the characters' philosophy and morality would bring them together. Instead, I got "Martha."
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 22, 2017 5:24:44 GMT
The critic comment was for you, since you seem to hold them in higher regard. I stopped giving a crap about critics the instant I learned John Carpenter's The Thing was panned back in 1982 for not being family friendly like E.T. Seriously, what? Yeah, but that "something different" also happens to either be incredibly repetitive (The X-Men verse, in which the same things happen in every film) or mediocre and incoherent (The DCEU). Sorry, but The MCU is the best of the three. It has the most variety and creativity, so I'm not buying the "they want something different" argument for a single second. DC fans have no room to complain or act like the victims. They started the fandom war back on the original IMDb when they thumbed their noses at The Phase 1 MCU films and then threw a bitch fit when The Avengers hit it huge. I remember the Ironman1 boards being absolutely invaded by Nolanites, and DC constantly hammered and trolled us to the very end of the boards. Any trolling from Marvel fans from in reaction to it. Their "issues" with the MCU are almost always poorly thought out, nitpicks at the best of times. I have no patient for people who can't read between the lines and need films to spell everything out for them. Whereas my issues with the DCEU are very legit. I was a promised a deep and philosophical film where the characters' philosophy and morality would bring them together. Instead, I got "Martha." why do you think people may enjoy the dceu or the fox properties, over the mcu? and not fanatics, but fans. and so........this whole thing is like 5 year grudge? and when will people get over it? because it seems fairly petty. in regards to critics, i don't hold them in the highest regard, i do take in their opinion to see....well, a potentially varying opinion or simply an opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 5:29:13 GMT
The critic comment was for you, since you seem to hold them in higher regard. I stopped giving a crap about critics the instant I learned John Carpenter's The Thing was panned back in 1982 for not being family friendly like E.T. Seriously, what? Yeah, but that "something different" also happens to either be incredibly repetitive (The X-Men verse, in which the same things happen in every film) or mediocre and incoherent (The DCEU). Sorry, but The MCU is the best of the three. It has the most variety and creativity, so I'm not buying the "they want something different" argument for a single second. DC fans have no room to complain or act like the victims. They started the fandom war back on the original IMDb when they thumbed their noses at The Phase 1 MCU films and then threw a bitch fit when The Avengers hit it huge. I remember the Ironman1 boards being absolutely invaded by Nolanites, and DC constantly hammered and trolled us to the very end of the boards. Any trolling from Marvel fans from in reaction to it. Their "issues" with the MCU are almost always poorly thought out, nitpicks at the best of times. I have no patient for people who can't read between the lines and need films to spell everything out for them. Whereas my issues with the DCEU are very legit. I was a promised a deep and philosophical film where the characters' philosophy and morality would bring them together. Instead, I got "Martha." why do you think people may enjoy the dceu or the fox properties, over the mcu? and not fanatics, but fans. and so........this whole thing is like 5 year grudge? and when will people get over it? because it seems fairly petty. in regards to critics, i don't hold them in the highest regard, i do take in their opinion to see....well, a potentially varying opinion or simply an opinion. They're ashamed to admit they like comic book movies and shun the Marvel films which embrace the comic booky tone and style they're based on. The X-Men and DCEU films distance themselves as far from the source material as they can, which gives them an out. It's not a 5 year old grudge. It was neverending, and still is here on this site. They were constantly like a flock of vultures tearing into each and every MCU film each and every time one's been released. THEY were petty. My Ignore list on IMDb was several miles long because it had to be. Otherwise, the boards of all the MCU films would be flooded with vicious trolling from DC fans. Their opinions are worthless.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 22, 2017 5:31:45 GMT
why do you think people may enjoy the dceu or the fox properties, over the mcu? and not fanatics, but fans. and so........this whole thing is like 5 year grudge? and when will people get over it? because it seems fairly petty. in regards to critics, i don't hold them in the highest regard, i do take in their opinion to see....well, a potentially varying opinion or simply an opinion. Their opinions are worthless. not even to see from a different point of view?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 5:33:30 GMT
These are the same people who endorse pretentious arthouse films. There is nothing for me to learn their differing viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Mar 22, 2017 16:30:37 GMT
While I disagree that Batman V. Superman was BETTER than Civil War.
I firmly believe Civil War was vastly overrated.
|
|
chatterer
Sophomore
@chatterer
Posts: 272
Likes: 112
|
Post by chatterer on Mar 23, 2017 13:59:32 GMT
While I disagree that Batman V. Superman was BETTER than Civil War. I firmly believe Civil War was vastly overrated. CW reused many things from WS imo.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Mar 23, 2017 14:03:36 GMT
While I disagree that Batman V. Superman was BETTER than Civil War. I firmly believe Civil War was vastly overrated. CW reused a lot from WS imo. My biggest problem with the entire film was that the major "set pieces" had literally nothing to do with the story and were there as fanservice. The airport fight was gratuitous and all of the Spider Man stuff should have been sacrificed to better develop Scarlet Witch. And yet those two things are the only things people talk about in the movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 16:13:23 GMT
No, the airport fight was the tipping point where things started to become truly serious and the divide became more pointed. Sorry it went right over your head.
|
|
|
Post by Larcen26 on Mar 23, 2017 16:59:21 GMT
No, the airport fight was the tipping point where things started to become truly serious and the divide became more pointed. Sorry it went right over your head. The last 2 minutes were that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 17:01:32 GMT
No, the whole thing. There is nothing gratuitous about the fight. Team Cap was off to stop Zemo outside of the law while Tony's Pro-Accords team was there to bring them in as ordered. There is a very logical progression of events here. The first portion of the fight is everyone trying not to hurt each other anymore than they absolutely have to to get past/arrest the other side, and then things take a very dark turn because these are very powerful people fighting each other. Sorry it went over your head.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 23, 2017 17:01:56 GMT
Gotta disagree there. It was definitely the moment Vision shot down Rhodey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 17:04:26 GMT
I'm looking between our two comments and I'm not seeing anything to disagreeable between them.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 23, 2017 17:17:56 GMT
CW reused a lot from WS imo. My biggest problem with the entire film was that the major "set pieces" had literally nothing to do with the story and were there as fanservice. The airport fight was gratuitous and all of the Spider Man stuff should have been sacrificed to better develop Scarlet Witch. And yet those two things are the only things people talk about in the movie. Gratuitous? The movie was building up to that fight from the very beginning. While it's true that some of the characters were unnecessary (Antman, Spiderman, etc.) for most of the characters in that fight the bad blood had already been brewing for some time and kept getting developed throughout the movie. In short, that fight served a purpose that's key to the story. And if it served a purpose it can't have been gratuitous.
|
|