|
Post by charzhino on Oct 19, 2018 9:01:46 GMT
It is far more likely that Singer has sexually assaulted people than Gunn has, but you don’t hate Singer’s movies unlike Gunn’s so you’re never gonna admit that. No it isnt more likely. Famous people get accused all the time. Until Singer admits he did it like Kevin Spacey or Weinstein did or it goes to trial and hes convicted then hes innocent just like Cristiano Ronaldo is right now after being accused. James Gunn on the other hand has no place to hide, the tweets were written by him and since then more unscrupulous behaviour has been exposed. He is more likely to be a peado than Singer according to your logic . And this is a 2 way street. People have been defending James Gunn simply because hes an MCU director and those people like his movies. So you are being a hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Oct 19, 2018 12:28:24 GMT
It is far more likely that Singer has sexually assaulted people than Gunn has, but you don’t hate Singer’s movies unlike Gunn’s so you’re never gonna admit that. No it isnt more likely. Famous people get accused all the time. Until Singer admits he did it like Kevin Spacey or Weinstein did or it goes to trial and hes convicted then hes innocent just like Cristiano Ronaldo is right now after being accused. James Gunn on the other hand has no place to hide, the tweets were written by him and since then more unscrupulous behaviour has been exposed. He is more likely to be a peado than Singer according to your logic . And this is a 2 way street. People have been defending James Gunn simply because hes an MCU director and those people like his movies. So you are being a hypocrite. No one is actually defending his Tweets themselves. What’s happening is that they’re concerned that the whole thing was caused by Mike Cernovich, who, may I remind you, not only someone who repeatedly glorifies rape, but also either defended the Flat Earth theory or became a Flat Earther himself. And Bryan Singer accusation goes back to 1997.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Oct 19, 2018 12:33:17 GMT
What kind of response are you looking for? You've already made up your mind and your agenda is pretty clear. You're even ok with pardoning Singer for the sake of your preference for the Fox-Men films. What point is there in discussing anything, unless you're just itching to argue? More importantly, why even watch MCU films at all? Is it solely to criticize? Are you holding out hope for the one day they make the kind of film you want? Because that just isn't their goal. It never has been. I'm ok with that because these films are entertaining and they bring me back to my childhood. That's enough for me. I don't take these things as seriously as you and your bro summers8 do apparently. I'm just wondering what you're going to do now that Fox has sold to Disney. You'll always have the old films and you don't have to like the MCU, but this is pretty much a done deal now. Im looking for a response that counters the points made in the video (which I didn't make) which a few people have pointed out. Is that so difficult for MCU fans to do? Keep trying to deflect and attack the messenger, just shows everyone you have no substance to the argument at hand. yeah. glad you notice how bud47/thatguys reacts.
he is always deflecting, I once made a thread about how mcu is idiotic to xmen tas, he comments on the thread and always tries to deflect the topic and then ask me to take meds, um, I am the sound one , all my comments and opinions are backed up by facts and evidence unlike him, who never counter response with any sound reasons and when he can or tires, he lies factually lies. some mcu fans are a reflection of mcu, zero substance.
glad the video was such a hit, its the truth. I mean mickey rouke has been saying this from iron man 2 when mcu was still little. if they had listen then, mcu will not be the artistic failure they are today.
honestly thanks for the video chazino, seeing the video make call backs to X1 praising how it is a character driven film that makes you think with xavier and magneto playing chess gave me chills. too iconic,
mcu gives me headaches with all their explosions.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 19, 2018 13:20:52 GMT
some mcu fans are a reflection of mcu, zero substance. Good point. There are some (not all) MCU fans on this board that dont contribute to any discussions or talk film. They only want to attack members who have a different opinion or raise criticism and as you say show zero substance. You have to wonder why they are even registered here to the Marvel Cinematic discussion board. As bad as formersamhd/archstanaton were at least they could engage in meaningful dialogue and talk about the films in detail even though they were delusional.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 19, 2018 13:48:50 GMT
It is far more likely that Singer has sexually assaulted people than Gunn has, but you don’t hate Singer’s movies unlike Gunn’s so you’re never gonna admit that. No it isnt more likely. Famous people get accused all the time. Until Singer admits he did it like Kevin Spacey or Weinstein did or it goes to trial and hes convicted then hes innocent just like Cristiano Ronaldo is right now after being accused. James Gunn on the other hand has no place to hide, the tweets were written by him and since then more unscrupulous behaviour has been exposed. He is more likely to be a peado than Singer according to your logic . And this is a 2 way street. People have been defending James Gunn simply because hes an MCU director and those people like his movies. So you are being a hypocrite. I think Gunn's tweets are horrible and at worst means he's a pedophile and best he's fucked up in the head. With Singer I know you are innocent until proven guilty, but I also believe the victim. I only know of 3 other people, other than me, who have been molested or raped. One is my ex-wife by her father, and we don't talk anymore. One is friend I graduated college with and the other is my sister. I asked my sister and college friend how they felt on Singer and Gunn situations to see if my own trauma has me seeing those situations fucked up. All 3 of us agree Gunn should've been fired that's a no-brainer. If Marvel didn't know of those tweets then they did a horrible job vetting their talent. If Marvel did know about the tweets they never should've hired him. So in the end Marvel fucked up either way. What I took away from those 2 conversations is there is a balance point between believing the victim vs. innocent until proven guilty. Because of my past trauma I am more likely to believe the victim and believe the tweets are symptoms of something worse. The other 2 even with their past trauma still believes more to innocent until proven guilty than me and the tweets aren't proof of pedophilia but is sick as fuck. This hypothetical came up. If you had to have Gunn or Singer babysit a 12 son who would you choose? Even with all the vile shit he put on twitter we all 3 said Gunn.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 19, 2018 14:03:46 GMT
This hypothetical came up. If you had to have Gunn or Singer babysit a 12 son who would you choose? Even with all the vile shit he put on twitter we all 3 said Gunn. If I had a child i would let Singer babysit him 7 days of the week before Id let Gunn anywhere near him for a second.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 19, 2018 14:21:25 GMT
This hypothetical came up. If you had to have Gunn or Singer babysit a 12 son who would you choose? Even with all the vile shit he put on twitter we all 3 said Gunn. If I had a child i would let Singer babysit him 7 days of the week before Id let Gunn anywhere near him for a second. To each their own there isn't a right answer for something like that. To me 5 people accusing my babysitter of rape vs no accusation but shit ton of vile shit on the internet I say the 5 accusations would push me to using the vile shit guy. I'm glad this is a hypothetical because both are shitty options to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 19, 2018 16:18:09 GMT
So? How the hell are they going to pull off Thanos and all the cosmic elements without CG? The number of directors who leave MCU movies are few. That's not the general consensus, jack.
1. Lord of the rings had cgi but still put quality and story telling first
2. a significant amount of their directors have left that we know its a problem for them
3. consensus? you mean critics who no longer have credibility because they praise mcu movies for been dumb fun. Also consensus? from long time comic fans and many film makers seem to be having more impact now to critics that have none. the consensus of other comic movies like xmen and batman is good story and high stakes. consensus of mcu is haha jokey fun. glad the vox video pointed that out indirectly.
I loved the call back in the video to the old xavier and magneto played by the great partick stewart and sir ian mckellen. both men highly praised for their performances and depth they brought to the films, remember the consensus for black panther that tried to copy Mckellen/Stewart= race baiting. LOL.
1. So did Infinity War, that's why it was received so well. 2. No it isn't. If you know anything about the industry you'd understand that 95% of motion pictures see directors of all walks in life interview for the position to helm production, get locked into said position, and exit for x number of reasons. It happens all the time. 3. You and your dislike toward the MCU isn't objective nor is it legitimate it is petty and totally ego-driven, so no matter who or what rates any of their products highly is dismissible but anyone who rates whatever it is that you like highly is acceptable. Just grow to learn that everybody has different opinions and reasons to like whatever it is that they want to like. And that Vox video is crap, it's been torn apart piece by piece by many others online...
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Oct 19, 2018 16:33:36 GMT
This hypothetical came up. If you had to have Gunn or Singer babysit a 12 son who would you choose? Even with all the vile shit he put on twitter we all 3 said Gunn. If I had a child i would let Singer babysit him 7 days of the week before Id let Gunn anywhere near him for a second. Weren't you just badmouthing hypotheticals? Do you know Singer personally? I wouldn't let either one near my children. The fact that you would so blindly just because you support the films of one over the other is scary.
|
|
|
Post by No Morpho, Only Bánh mì on Oct 19, 2018 16:40:40 GMT
This hypothetical came up. If you had to have Gunn or Singer babysit a 12 son who would you choose? Even with all the vile shit he put on twitter we all 3 said Gunn. Which is more like likely to cast the kid after babysitting?
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Oct 19, 2018 17:17:18 GMT
Im looking for a response that counters the points made in the video (which I didn't make) which a few people have pointed out. Is that so difficult for MCU fans to do? Keep trying to deflect and attack the messenger, just shows everyone you have no substance to the argument at hand. mickey rouke
FOR GOD’S SAKE!! HIS FREAKING NAME IS MICKEY ROURKE!!
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Oct 19, 2018 17:48:00 GMT
FOR GOD’S SAKE!! HIS FREAKING NAME IS MICKEY ROURKE!! Don't forget Edward Norton and Terrance Howard. Summers8 (wormhole) has been using this argument since the old IMDB board days. Never mind the legion of well-respected, award winning actors and filmmakers that have also worked with Marvel that have no problem with them whatsoever and applaud/praise them. Let's just take the word of Mickey Rourke, who's burned so many bridges with his diva behavior that his only option now is direct to video flicks. He should have known what he signed up for.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Oct 19, 2018 18:15:10 GMT
FOR GOD’S SAKE!! HIS FREAKING NAME IS MICKEY ROURKE!! Don't forget Edward Norton and Terrance Howard. Summers8 (wormhole) has been using this argument since the old IMDB board days. Never mind the legion of well-respected, award winning actors and filmmakers that have also worked with Marvel that have no problem with them whatsoever and applaud/praise them. Let's just take the word of Mickey Rourke, who's burned so many bridges with his diva behavior that his only option now is direct to video flicks. He should have known what he signed up for. 1, you should top slandering people because they say the truth. Mickey was not a diva, he is a character study actor who wanted better. that was the truth also thatguy once said he was a diva too. SOCK.
so you lied about rouke. typical.
2, few well respected directors dont work with mcu, many despise them the few that do dont consider mcu movies to be their best work.
what separated people like Singer (professionally) and nolan is. for their fans, smart audiences and critics it is 50/50 what is their best film.
TDK vs Inception
X2 vs Unusual suspect.
MCU is a disgrace on all levels and more people are speaking out that is having impact. deal with it.
Glad chazino picked up your tirck. you always try to deflect the topic. it does mean MCU is totial trash, why else do you always deflect.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Oct 19, 2018 18:47:19 GMT
Don't forget Edward Norton and Terrance Howard. Summers8 (wormhole) has been using this argument since the old IMDB board days. Never mind the legion of well-respected, award winning actors and filmmakers that have also worked with Marvel that have no problem with them whatsoever and applaud/praise them. Let's just take the word of Mickey Rourke, who's burned so many bridges with his diva behavior that his only option now is direct to video flicks. He should have known what he signed up for. 1, you should top slandering people because they say the truth. Mickey was not a diva, he is a character study actor who wanted better. that was the truth also thatguy once said he was a diva too. SOCK.
so you lied about rouke. typical.
2, few well respected directors dont work with mcu, many despise them the few that do dont consider mcu movies to be their best work.
what separated people like Singer (professionally) and nolan is. for their fans, smart audiences and critics it is 50/50 what is their best film.
TDK vs Inception
X2 vs Unusual suspect.
MCU is a disgrace on all levels and more people are speaking out that is having impact. deal with it.
Glad chazino picked up your tirck. you always try to deflect the topic. it does mean MCU is totial trash, why else do you always deflect.
You really need to work on your grammar and spelling. You sound like like you hit your head on something and you've ignored the swelling for years. 1 - Mickey Rourke is a diva. It's a pretty well known opinion of the guy. There's no other word for it. He's burned a lot of bridges in Hollywood and his career has suffered because of it. He was riding high off of his success with The Wrestler at the time and thought he could call the shots even though he signed on the dotted line for his paycheck. How is any of that a lie? 2 - So you speak for directors now? Ryan Coogler is coming back for the Black Panther sequel. He wouldn't even come back for Creed II. No one is discounting Nolan's work. I respect and enjoy his films very much. His talent is apparent and consistent. Singer is a one trick pony that had some early success and has since run out of steam. What else has he done that's really noteworthy other than the first two X-Men films and The Usual Suspects? He has just as many misfires in his resume as successes. Jack The Giant Slayer? Superman Returns? X-Men Apocalypse? All crap. Apt Pupil and Valkyrie were average. He got lucky with DOFP thanks to the help of Matthew Vaugn and the influence of the comic book storyline it's based on. You can say the MCU is a disgrace and trash for you personally. It's not the general consensus though. You can keep fighting this uphill battle all you want if it makes you feel better, but it's not having any impact on anything and you're definitely in the minority. Sounds like you're the one that needs to deal with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 18:48:17 GMT
I think that's true about Civil War. Ant-Man arguably didn't need to be there. I think part of it revolved around having Spiderman, who was also not necessary, but it makes for more bodies in the airport fight. But at this point, it is kind of a fireworks display. Actually, having these two hang around almost seems like a celebration of budget.
I'm not enamored of the MCU repackaging of Spiderman. But as a function of corporate moves in the background, my understanding was that Spiderman was rushed into the film because Disney just acquired the licensing from Sony, which isn't a defense, just an observation.
I liked Asgard in Thor Ragnarok. I liked that it had a little more of a Guardians aesthetic and X-Men color palette. It's definitely hollow and fake; Loki's impersonating their king. Their society's an illusion and so is their safety. I have nothing negative to say about Asgard in the first two Thor movies. I did think Asgard in Ragnarok more closely aligns with the version of Asgard I thought there was before the first two Thor movies, a world a little more Fantasia like. At that stage of the story it's definitely a fool's paradise. Complacency begets vulnerability.
Speaking of celebration of budget, I can't help but think of shoving Matt Damon in for a throwaway role. That's chest-puffing money.
I'll take that. It was never really my intention to undermine the X-Men cameo in Deadpool 2. I just didn't think it was necessarily superior. I do like and agree with the discrimination and hostility lurking in the background of the movies. The metaphor is so strong and everlasting that I see its DNA in all manifestations of X-Men; movies, shows and the whole nine.
The MCU I think kind of tried to shove a lot of the 'society's afraid of us' idea into Civil War, which didn't really work. Being held accountable for their actions and security v liberty, damage control, sovereignty and government oversight are where Civil War took it. They're not really mutants. They're individuals with abilities (which changes the metaphor) and individuals with remarkable technology. Enhanced abilities are in people who're either experimented on like Steve Rogers, or they're just different species like Drax and Gomorrah. You don't really get the same sense of racism or xenophobia. The people who hate the Avengers the most (in their universe) are either the pencil pushers or people directly affected by collateral damage. Unchecked heroism and following your heart v government oversight and regulations are the MCU's shot at the liberal/conservative dichotomy. It's not the worst but X-Men's peace v war and ethnic cleansing themes are much better. My favorite Marvel property to this very day might still be the 90's X-Men animated series from Fox.
I also really liked the Deadpool movies. The example I used with Deadpool singing the Hulk lullaby on Juggernaut's shoulders was actually one of my favorite jokes in what was already a laugh-out-loud fest with great violence. It fits the point I made about being up to date, but thankfully I am so for me it landed hard. "Zip it, Thanos!" too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 18:53:34 GMT
The fact he openly pardons Singer while still condemning Gunn pretty says it all. We actually have people coming forward to accuse Singer, but Gunn only has tweets with no one coming forward about him. Why? Because Singer worked on X-Men films, which Charzhino likes, and Gunn worked on MCU films, which Charzino doesn't like. So a man's guilt or innocence relies entirely on whether they've made films he enjoys. Sad, really. I never openly pardoned him, I just gave a article where he denies the allegations. Are we now going by the guilty until proven innocent line of justice? Why not? It's what you do where James Gunn is concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 18:55:36 GMT
It is far more likely that Singer has sexually assaulted people than Gunn has, but you don’t hate Singer’s movies unlike Gunn’s so you’re never gonna admit that. No it isnt more likely. Famous people get accused all the time. Until Singer admits he did it like Kevin Spacey or Weinstein did or it goes to trial and hes convicted then hes innocent just like Cristiano Ronaldo is right now after being accused. James Gunn on the other hand has no place to hide, the tweets were written by him and since then more unscrupulous behaviour has been exposed. He is more likely to be a peado than Singer according to your logic . And this is a 2 way street. People have been defending James Gunn simply because hes an MCU director and those people like his movies. So you are being a hypocrite. So where are Gunn's accusers if he's guilty? There are usually actual "victims" coming forward to accuse famous when this kind of thing happens, but no one's made a go to take Gunn to court. Oops. Looks like another of your arguments just fell flat on its ass. Like they always do. And you're insisting that Gunn is guilty because he's an MCU director.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 19, 2018 18:57:02 GMT
I think that's true about Civil War. Ant-Man arguably didn't need to be there. I think part of it revolved around having Spiderman, who was also not necessary, but it makes for more bodies in the airport fight. But at this point, it is kind of a fireworks display. Actually, having these two hang around almost seems like a celebration of budget.
I'm not enamored of the MCU repackaging of Spiderman. But as a function of corporate moves in the background, my understanding was that Spiderman was rushed into the film because Disney just acquired the licensing from Sony, which isn't a defense, just an observation.
I liked Asgard in Thor Ragnarok. I liked that it had a little more of a Guardians aesthetic and X-Men color palette. It's definitely hollow and fake; Loki's impersonating their king. Their society's an illusion and so is their safety. I have nothing negative to say about Asgard in the first two Thor movies. I did think Asgard in Ragnarok more closely aligns with the version of Asgard I thought there was before the first two Thor movies, a world a little more Fantasia like. At that stage of the story it's definitely a fool's paradise. Complacency begets vulnerability.
Speaking of celebration of budget, I can't help but think of shoving Matt Damon in for a throwaway role. That's chest-puffing money.
I'll take that. It was never really my intention to undermine the X-Men cameo in Deadpool 2. I just didn't think it was necessarily superior. I do like and agree with the discrimination and hostility lurking in the background of the movies. The metaphor is so strong and everlasting that I see its DNA in all manifestations of X-Men; movies, shows and the whole nine.
The MCU I think kind of tried to shove a lot of the 'society's afraid of us' idea into Civil War, which didn't really work. Being held accountable for their actions and security v liberty, damage control, sovereignty and government oversight are where Civil War took it. They're not really mutants. They're individuals with abilities (which changes the metaphor) and individuals with remarkable technology. Enhanced abilities are in people who're either experimented on like Steve Rogers, or they're just different species like Drax and Gomorrah. You don't really get the same sense of racism or xenophobia. The people who hate the Avengers the most (in their universe) are either the pencil pushers or people directly affected by collateral damage. Unchecked heroism and following your heart v government oversight and regulations are the MCU's shot at the liberal/conservative dichotomy. It's not the worst but X-Men's peace v war and ethnic cleansing themes are much better. My favorite Marvel property to this very day might still be the 90's X-Men animated series from Fox.
I also really liked the Deadpool movies. The example I used with Deadpool singing the Hulk lullaby on Juggernaut's shoulders was actually one of my favorite jokes in what was already a laugh-out-loud fest with great violence. It fits the point I made about being up to date, but thankfully I am so for me it landed hard. "Zip it, Thanos!" too.
Matt Damon will cameo in your student film if you ask him. That guy is the king of pointless cameos. Solid examination of things, though. I though the premise of Civil War was solid, but the execution was lacking for the reasons you mentioned. I enjoy the film despite its flaws, however. Interesting take on Ragnarok, it makes you wonder if that was their intent all along or just a side effect caused by the more comedic take on the concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 19:23:16 GMT
I think that's true about Civil War. Ant-Man arguably didn't need to be there. I think part of it revolved around having Spiderman, who was also not necessary, but it makes for more bodies in the airport fight. But at this point, it is kind of a fireworks display. Actually, having these two hang around almost seems like a celebration of budget.
I'm not enamored of the MCU repackaging of Spiderman. But as a function of corporate moves in the background, my understanding was that Spiderman was rushed into the film because Disney just acquired the licensing from Sony, which isn't a defense, just an observation.
I liked Asgard in Thor Ragnarok. I liked that it had a little more of a Guardians aesthetic and X-Men color palette. It's definitely hollow and fake; Loki's impersonating their king. Their society's an illusion and so is their safety. I have nothing negative to say about Asgard in the first two Thor movies. I did think Asgard in Ragnarok more closely aligns with the version of Asgard I thought there was before the first two Thor movies, a world a little more Fantasia like. At that stage of the story it's definitely a fool's paradise. Complacency begets vulnerability.
Speaking of celebration of budget, I can't help but think of shoving Matt Damon in for a throwaway role. That's chest-puffing money.
I'll take that. It was never really my intention to undermine the X-Men cameo in Deadpool 2. I just didn't think it was necessarily superior. I do like and agree with the discrimination and hostility lurking in the background of the movies. The metaphor is so strong and everlasting that I see its DNA in all manifestations of X-Men; movies, shows and the whole nine.
The MCU I think kind of tried to shove a lot of the 'society's afraid of us' idea into Civil War, which didn't really work. Being held accountable for their actions and security v liberty, damage control, sovereignty and government oversight are where Civil War took it. They're not really mutants. They're individuals with abilities (which changes the metaphor) and individuals with remarkable technology. Enhanced abilities are in people who're either experimented on like Steve Rogers, or they're just different species like Drax and Gomorrah. You don't really get the same sense of racism or xenophobia. The people who hate the Avengers the most (in their universe) are either the pencil pushers or people directly affected by collateral damage. Unchecked heroism and following your heart v government oversight and regulations are the MCU's shot at the liberal/conservative dichotomy. It's not the worst but X-Men's peace v war and ethnic cleansing themes are much better. My favorite Marvel property to this very day might still be the 90's X-Men animated series from Fox.
I also really liked the Deadpool movies. The example I used with Deadpool singing the Hulk lullaby on Juggernaut's shoulders was actually one of my favorite jokes in what was already a laugh-out-loud fest with great violence. It fits the point I made about being up to date, but thankfully I am so for me it landed hard. "Zip it, Thanos!" too.
Matt Damon will cameo in your student film if you ask him. That guy is the king of pointless cameos. Solid examination of things, though. I though the premise of Civil War was solid, but the execution was lacking for the reasons you mentioned. I enjoy the film despite its flaws, however. Interesting take on Ragnarok, it makes you wonder if that was their intent all along or just a side effect caused by the more comedic take on the concept. That's so funny about Matt Damon.
My guess is it was a side effect, but personally I liked What We Do in the Shadows and it's the same director so who knows?
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Oct 19, 2018 20:28:15 GMT
Don't forget Edward Norton and Terrance Howard. Summers8 (wormhole) has been using this argument since the old IMDB board days. Never mind the legion of well-respected, award winning actors and filmmakers that have also worked with Marvel that have no problem with them whatsoever and applaud/praise them. Let's just take the word of Mickey Rourke, who's burned so many bridges with his diva behavior that his only option now is direct to video flicks. He should have known what he signed up for. rouke
ROURKE GODDAMMIT!!!
|
|