|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 30, 2017 16:45:07 GMT
Iwas a huge fan of X1 and X2 and here's the problem X-Men face now. They haven't built to anything. You can't just announce what movie is going to happen in between films, you need to have a narrative structure building to it that makes sense, and the X-Verse never feels like it's going anywhere. It feels like they say "oh by the way here's apocalypse". They just don't create the sense that you need to watch them. And thats exactly what makes it more appealing than the mass-produced, filler episodic structure of the MCU or DCEU. Id hate if Fox suddenly announced a pallete of 15 films they were planning to release, years before production begins. It feels too manufactured knowing theres going to be a Cyclops solo movie 3 years down the line because everything inbetween is going to be centred on preparing for that film. And when you get big Avenger style ensemble movies against a super villain, theres so much tedious set up and aforementioned filler that the solo movies can become forgettable. Whilst it may work for Marvel, this wont apply to other properties as it seems all of Hollywood studios are desperate to create a mimicked version of the MCU crossover universe. Yeah I find the episodic build a larger story model far more appealing than the going nowhere one film at a time model.
I haven't found anything tedious or manufactured about the MCU. Quite the opposite, it feels inspired and epic. If you've been watching, everything isn't centered on something happening down the line. The solo films have enormous freedom to explore their area. Black Panther's solo for instance, doesn't feel like it's trapped in some box, it feels vibrant and new and exciting.
|
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 30, 2017 17:53:14 GMT
That all sounds pretty good. I still don't understand why they thought 3 should be the end of the series. Obviously they reconsidered that move rather quickly, but were (IMO) never able to fully salvage the franchise despite a few good entries. X3 was totally all over the place. I don't completely hate it, but it did really drop the ball in so many ways. Halle Berry was always a weak link so putting her in a bigger role was not a great idea. The killing of Cyclops still makes me scream at my tv. And the Phoenix persona pretty much erased Jean so all subtlety and nuance was lost. Personally I think ALL of these series are cut down too quick. I would've loved more of Bale's Batman and Raimi's Spider-man. I would've loved to see more movies with the original X Men. And absolutely would love to see another Iron Man with RDJ and another Cap with Evans. As long as the writers and directors are committed these characters have tons of untapped stories to use. Exactly. And even if the core group decided they were done after just three or four movies, there are tons of X-Men from the comics. Hell, there are multiple teams. If half the cast members from the original decide to take a hiatus, Fox could always have made a movie about a different X-Men team. Going off the idea of Xavier calling a press conference and going public that I proposed for the end of the third one, that could lead to the Xavier Institute getting enough support to expand and start opening more campuses. Have a film staged at, say, the second to go up with Kelsey Grammar's Hank McCoy as the headmaster. Focus the film on the students learning to control their powers, and then circumstances basically force them to act as a makeshift X-Men team. Fox literally has an entire untapped world at their fingertips. They need only to reach out and grab it. I think filmmakers might just need to stop thinking in terms of just trilogies for comic book movies. The problem though is that, for whatever reason, movie series almost always fall apart after two movies. Honestly Cap Civil War is the only really good superhero part 3. That's not to say that I don't like some of the others, but Cap 3 is the only one that really stands along side (if not surpasses) its predecessors. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 21:31:55 GMT
Exactly. And even if the core group decided they were done after just three or four movies, there are tons of X-Men from the comics. Hell, there are multiple teams. If half the cast members from the original decide to take a hiatus, Fox could always have made a movie about a different X-Men team. Going off the idea of Xavier calling a press conference and going public that I proposed for the end of the third one, that could lead to the Xavier Institute getting enough support to expand and start opening more campuses. Have a film staged at, say, the second to go up with Kelsey Grammar's Hank McCoy as the headmaster. Focus the film on the students learning to control their powers, and then circumstances basically force them to act as a makeshift X-Men team. Fox literally has an entire untapped world at their fingertips. They need only to reach out and grab it. I think filmmakers might just need to stop thinking in terms of just trilogies for comic book movies. The problem though is that, for whatever reason, movie series almost always fall apart after two movies. Honestly Cap Civil War is the only really good superhero part 3. That's not to say that I don't like some of the others, but Cap 3 is the only one that really stands along side (if not surpasses) its predecessors. Good point, but I do slightly disagree, because I really liked Ironman 3. But Civil War rocks more, of course. Yeah, the problem these superhero third movies keep running into almost every single time (except The Dark Knight Rises, where it was just Nolan himself screwing the pooch) is that the executives get cold feet for whatever reason and start meddling despite the filmmakers' having brought in the big bucks twice now. X-Men 3 had no excuse being as bad as it was. If Rothman had just behaved and let Singer make his third movie, all would have been well. Same with Warner Bros regarding the Donner Superman films. And if Sony had been just slightly patient with getting Venom into the franchise, Raimi could have delivered a Black Suit Spider-Man film where he faces The Second Goblin and Sandman, ending with Pete separating himself from the Symbiote with the stinger, of course, being... sigh... Topher Grace becoming Venom. Then Venom would have had the entire fourth movie to himself. |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 30, 2017 23:00:08 GMT
The problem though is that, for whatever reason, movie series almost always fall apart after two movies. Honestly Cap Civil War is the only really good superhero part 3. That's not to say that I don't like some of the others, but Cap 3 is the only one that really stands along side (if not surpasses) its predecessors. Good point, but I do slightly disagree, because I really liked Ironman 3. But Civil War rocks more, of course. Yeah, the problem these superhero third movies keep running into almost every single time (except The Dark Knight Rises, where it was just Nolan himself screwing the pooch) is that the executives get cold feet for whatever reason and start meddling despite the filmmakers' having brought in the big bucks twice now. X-Men 3 had no excuse being as bad as it was. If Rothman had just behaved and let Singer make his third movie, all would have been well. Same with Warner Bros regarding the Donner Superman films. And if Sony had been just slightly patient with getting Venom into the franchise, Raimi could have delivered a Black Suit Spider-Man film where he faces The Second Goblin and Sandman, ending with Pete separating himself from the Symbiote with the stinger, of course, being... sigh... Topher Grace becoming Venom. Then Venom would have had the entire fourth movie to himself. I enjoy Iron Man 3 as a guilty pleasure but consider it to be just as disappointing as Spiderman 3 and X3, if not more so. TDKR I actually really enjoy despite its face palm inducing moments and absurd plot devices. But yeah, studio interference is a constant problem. You'd think success would bring freedom for the filmmakers but strangely, the opposite always happens. As for Spidey 3 I think the original script with Vulture instead of Venom might've worked really well. The Venom/Symbiote stuff just doesn't fit with the act one set up at all. But then again, Harry as Goblin 2 was the bigger let down IMO and that had nothing to do with the studio. I hope Avengers 3-4 can avoid some of the part three pitfalls. I think it helps having a different creative team to bring some freshness. I like what Whedon did with Avengers 1 but it's clear, like so many directors of trilogies, that he was thoroughly burnt out on these characters after (and during) movie 2. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 23:27:48 GMT
Good point, but I do slightly disagree, because I really liked Ironman 3. But Civil War rocks more, of course. Yeah, the problem these superhero third movies keep running into almost every single time (except The Dark Knight Rises, where it was just Nolan himself screwing the pooch) is that the executives get cold feet for whatever reason and start meddling despite the filmmakers' having brought in the big bucks twice now. X-Men 3 had no excuse being as bad as it was. If Rothman had just behaved and let Singer make his third movie, all would have been well. Same with Warner Bros regarding the Donner Superman films. And if Sony had been just slightly patient with getting Venom into the franchise, Raimi could have delivered a Black Suit Spider-Man film where he faces The Second Goblin and Sandman, ending with Pete separating himself from the Symbiote with the stinger, of course, being... sigh... Topher Grace becoming Venom. Then Venom would have had the entire fourth movie to himself. I enjoy Iron Man 3 as a guilty pleasure but consider it to be just as disappointing as Spiderman 3 and X3, if not more so. TDKR I actually really enjoy despite its face palm inducing moments and absurd plot devices. But yeah, studio interference is a constant problem. You'd think success would bring freedom for the filmmakers but strangely, the opposite always happens. As for Spidey 3 I think the original script with Vulture instead of Venom might've worked really well. The Venom/Symbiote stuff just doesn't fit with the act one set up at all. But then again, Harry as Goblin 2 was the bigger let down IMO and that had nothing to do with the studio. I hope Avengers 3-4 can avoid some of the part three pitfalls. I think it helps having a different creative team to bring some freshness. I like what Whedon did with Avengers 1 but it's clear, like so many directors of trilogies, that he was thoroughly burnt out on these characters after (and during) movie 2. This view of Ironman 3 always puzzles me. I know its not the Ironman 3 people expected, but for the life of me I was never let down by it even for a second. I dunno, maybe it was because I knew that a proper Mandarin was out of the question from the beginning. I actually went in perplexed they were doing the Mardarin at all and then thought the twist was brilliant, myself. Eh... I don't think Raimi could have done Vulture nearly as well as Homecoming did. I think the problem with Harry/Goblin 2 was that he was stuck in an overcrowded movie that shoved him aside. Had he been allowed to be a proper co-villain with Sandman, I have no doubt it would have panned out better. I actually liked what we got of Harry in Spider-Man 3. Then again, I also think James Franco was the only one among the 20-somethings portion of the cast that did his character any justice at all. I honestly have no doubts Avengers 3 and 4 are going to be great. They're not really treating it as a 3, though. Its more of a season finale culmination of everything the series has done so far. |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 1:46:30 GMT
I enjoy Iron Man 3 as a guilty pleasure but consider it to be just as disappointing as Spiderman 3 and X3, if not more so. TDKR I actually really enjoy despite its face palm inducing moments and absurd plot devices. But yeah, studio interference is a constant problem. You'd think success would bring freedom for the filmmakers but strangely, the opposite always happens. As for Spidey 3 I think the original script with Vulture instead of Venom might've worked really well. The Venom/Symbiote stuff just doesn't fit with the act one set up at all. But then again, Harry as Goblin 2 was the bigger let down IMO and that had nothing to do with the studio. I hope Avengers 3-4 can avoid some of the part three pitfalls. I think it helps having a different creative team to bring some freshness. I like what Whedon did with Avengers 1 but it's clear, like so many directors of trilogies, that he was thoroughly burnt out on these characters after (and during) movie 2. This view of Ironman 3 always puzzles me. I know its not the Ironman 3 people expected, but for the life of me I was never let down by it even for a second. I dunno, maybe it was because I knew that a proper Mandarin was out of the question from the beginning. I actually went in perplexed they were doing the Mardarin at all and then thought the twist was brilliant, myself. Eh... I don't think Raimi could have done Vulture nearly as well as Homecoming did. I think the problem with Harry/Goblin 2 was that he was stuck in an overcrowded movie that shoved him aside. Had he been allowed to be a proper co-villain with Sandman, I have no doubt it would have panned out better. I actually liked what we got of Harry in Spider-Man 3. Then again, I also think James Franco was the only one among the 20-somethings portion of the cast that did his character any justice at all. I honestly have no doubts Avengers 3 and 4 are going to be great. They're not really treating it as a 3, though. Its more of a season finale culmination of everything the series has done so far. My problems with Iron Man 3 actually have nothing to do with The Mandarin twist. I had zero attachment to the comic book villain so I really didn't care whether they portrayed him accurately. I do find Killian to be a generic mustache twirling villain though. But the worst part is that Stark is essentially removed from the plot the whole time. If you look at it from a structural stand point then Pepper is actually the protagonist, not Stark. Most of the plot points don't even effect him. I still do enjoy it though. It's not a terrible movie. I love the Mark 47 suit. I gotta disagree about Vulture. One thing I love about Raimi's Spidey villains is that they look and feel so iconic. The concept art for Spiderman 4 featured a very cool and comic accurate Vulture. I didn't like Homecoming's design for him. As far as characterization, who knows if it would've been better or worse. Homecoming did a good job there. My concern with Avengers 3 is that it will juggle too many themes and characters. Featuring the GotG really packs the roster to the brim. Still excited for it, just cautiously so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 3:03:41 GMT
This view of Ironman 3 always puzzles me. I know its not the Ironman 3 people expected, but for the life of me I was never let down by it even for a second. I dunno, maybe it was because I knew that a proper Mandarin was out of the question from the beginning. I actually went in perplexed they were doing the Mardarin at all and then thought the twist was brilliant, myself. Eh... I don't think Raimi could have done Vulture nearly as well as Homecoming did. I think the problem with Harry/Goblin 2 was that he was stuck in an overcrowded movie that shoved him aside. Had he been allowed to be a proper co-villain with Sandman, I have no doubt it would have panned out better. I actually liked what we got of Harry in Spider-Man 3. Then again, I also think James Franco was the only one among the 20-somethings portion of the cast that did his character any justice at all. I honestly have no doubts Avengers 3 and 4 are going to be great. They're not really treating it as a 3, though. Its more of a season finale culmination of everything the series has done so far. My problems with Iron Man 3 actually have nothing to do with The Mandarin twist. I had zero attachment to the comic book villain so I really didn't care whether they portrayed him accurately. I do find Killian to be a generic mustache twirling villain though. But the worst part is that Stark is essentially removed from the plot the whole time. If you look at it from a structural stand point then Pepper is actually the protagonist, not Stark. Most of the plot points don't even effect him. I still do enjoy it though. It's not a terrible movie. I love the Mark 47 suit. I gotta disagree about Vulture. One thing I love about Raimi's Spidey villains is that they look and feel so iconic. The concept art for Spiderman 4 featured a very cool and comic accurate Vulture. I didn't like Homecoming's design for him. As far as characterization, who knows if it would've been better or worse. Homecoming did a good job there. My concern with Avengers 3 is that it will juggle too many themes and characters. Featuring the GotG really packs the roster to the brim. Still excited for it, just cautiously so. I don't think I agree with Tony being removed from the plot at all. Nor do I agree with the plot points not effecting him. He causes the plot to happen, and then his own foolish bravado brings it right to his front door and he ends up on the run because of it. That's not divorced from the plot or its consequences. I don't know how you got the idea of Pepper being the protagonist given how little of the film she's is. And I have to disagree with the Raimi films villain's looking iconic. The Green Goblin had the most non-threatening, absurd design this side of Power Rangers and I wasn't wowed by Doc Oc, either. Or Sandman. Or Venom. Really, the only villain design that works for me is Harry's Goblin outfit. I love Homecoming's design for the Vulture. Raimi would have made Vulture too weepy and nice to be much of a threatening villain. That's why I hated Doc Oc. They defanged his menace the instant they gave him a beloved wife. Doc Oc is not meant to be a tragic villain in any way, shape, or form, and to try making him one just ruins the whole point of him. If they wanted a sympathetic villain, they should have jumped straight to The Lizard. As for me, I have no concerns at all for Avengers 3.  |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 4:01:24 GMT
My problems with Iron Man 3 actually have nothing to do with The Mandarin twist. I had zero attachment to the comic book villain so I really didn't care whether they portrayed him accurately. I do find Killian to be a generic mustache twirling villain though. But the worst part is that Stark is essentially removed from the plot the whole time. If you look at it from a structural stand point then Pepper is actually the protagonist, not Stark. Most of the plot points don't even effect him. I still do enjoy it though. It's not a terrible movie. I love the Mark 47 suit. I gotta disagree about Vulture. One thing I love about Raimi's Spidey villains is that they look and feel so iconic. The concept art for Spiderman 4 featured a very cool and comic accurate Vulture. I didn't like Homecoming's design for him. As far as characterization, who knows if it would've been better or worse. Homecoming did a good job there. My concern with Avengers 3 is that it will juggle too many themes and characters. Featuring the GotG really packs the roster to the brim. Still excited for it, just cautiously so. I don't think I agree with Tony being removed from the plot at all. Nor do I agree with the plot points not effecting him. He causes the plot to happen, and then his own foolish bravado brings it right to his front door and he ends up on the run because of it. That's not divorced from the plot or its consequences. I don't know how you got the idea of Pepper being the protagonist given how little of the film she's is. And I have to disagree with the Raimi films villain's looking iconic. The Green Goblin had the most non-threatening, absurd design this side of Power Rangers and I wasn't wowed by Doc Oc, either. Or Sandman. Or Venom. Really, the only villain design that works for me is Harry's Goblin outfit. I love Homecoming's design for the Vulture. Raimi would have made Vulture too weepy and nice to be much of a threatening villain. That's why I hated Doc Oc. They defanged his menace the instant they gave him a beloved wife. Doc Oc is not meant to be a tragic villain in any way, shape, or form, and to try making him one just ruins the whole point of him. If they wanted a sympathetic villain, they should have jumped straight to The Lizard. As for me, I have no concerns at all for Avengers 3. Killian's entrance into the plot is him meeting Pepper. Tony isn't there and barely even cares. Then, for all of act two he's in freakin Tennessee. The Mandarin's threats/videos don't effect him. He's oblivious. When Killian is revealed to be a villain it's Pepper who is told by what's her name, Tony finds out waaaaay later. Even when Pepper is kidnapped Tony doesn't know about it- thus it has a very delayed effect on him. The audience, and Pepper, are always a few steps ahead of Tony until act three. It makes him seem inconsequential to the plot. Also, his story revolves around the question of whether he is still Iron Man without the suit... Which is admirably character driven, but keeps him out of the suit for most of the movie, thus very ineffectual and non-proactive. But again, I still enjoy the movie for what it is. As for Spidey's villains, I will agree that Goblin's design was a bit silly. I respectfully disagree with everything else. I do hope Avengers 3 is great, but I'm always cautiously optimistic with movies. I prefer to be pleasantly surprised than disappointed. I'm cynical by nature, I suppose. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 4:13:45 GMT
I don't think I agree with Tony being removed from the plot at all. Nor do I agree with the plot points not effecting him. He causes the plot to happen, and then his own foolish bravado brings it right to his front door and he ends up on the run because of it. That's not divorced from the plot or its consequences. I don't know how you got the idea of Pepper being the protagonist given how little of the film she's is. And I have to disagree with the Raimi films villain's looking iconic. The Green Goblin had the most non-threatening, absurd design this side of Power Rangers and I wasn't wowed by Doc Oc, either. Or Sandman. Or Venom. Really, the only villain design that works for me is Harry's Goblin outfit. I love Homecoming's design for the Vulture. Raimi would have made Vulture too weepy and nice to be much of a threatening villain. That's why I hated Doc Oc. They defanged his menace the instant they gave him a beloved wife. Doc Oc is not meant to be a tragic villain in any way, shape, or form, and to try making him one just ruins the whole point of him. If they wanted a sympathetic villain, they should have jumped straight to The Lizard. As for me, I have no concerns at all for Avengers 3. Killian's entrance into the plot is him meeting Pepper. Tony isn't there and barely even cares. Then, for all of act two he's in freakin Tennessee. The Mandarin's threats/videos don't effect him. He's oblivious. When Killian is revealed to be a villain it's Pepper who is told by what's her name, Tony finds out waaaaay later. Even when Pepper is kidnapped Tony doesn't know about it- thus it has a very delayed effect on him. The audience, and Pepper, are always a few steps ahead of Tony until act three. It makes him seem inconsequential to the plot. Also, his story revolves around the question of whether he is still Iron Man without the suit... Which is admirably character driven, but keeps him out of the suit for most of the movie, thus very ineffectual and non-proactive. But again, I still enjoy the movie for what it is. As for Spidey's villains, I will agree that Goblin's design was a bit silly. I respectfully disagree with everything else. I do hope Avengers 3 is great, but I'm always cautiously optimistic with movies. I prefer to be pleasantly surprised than disappointed. I'm cynical by nature, I suppose. And again, I have to disagree on the topic of Ironman 3. I never once felt he was inconsequential to the plot. Huh? Tony was very proactive throughout. I don't know where that part just came from. Even with Doc Oc? Why do people love the film adaptation of that character? Fair enough. |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 4:22:29 GMT
Killian's entrance into the plot is him meeting Pepper. Tony isn't there and barely even cares. Then, for all of act two he's in freakin Tennessee. The Mandarin's threats/videos don't effect him. He's oblivious. When Killian is revealed to be a villain it's Pepper who is told by what's her name, Tony finds out waaaaay later. Even when Pepper is kidnapped Tony doesn't know about it- thus it has a very delayed effect on him. The audience, and Pepper, are always a few steps ahead of Tony until act three. It makes him seem inconsequential to the plot. Also, his story revolves around the question of whether he is still Iron Man without the suit... Which is admirably character driven, but keeps him out of the suit for most of the movie, thus very ineffectual and non-proactive. But again, I still enjoy the movie for what it is. As for Spidey's villains, I will agree that Goblin's design was a bit silly. I respectfully disagree with everything else. I do hope Avengers 3 is great, but I'm always cautiously optimistic with movies. I prefer to be pleasantly surprised than disappointed. I'm cynical by nature, I suppose. And again, I have to disagree on the topic of Ironman 3. I never once felt he was inconsequential to the plot. Tony was very proactive throughout once he was got directly involved. I don't know where that part just came from. Even with Doc Oc? Why do people love the film adaptation of that character? Fair enough. But when does Tony actually get involved? He makes that awesome threat. His house is destroyed in an awesome scene... Then he does a bit of b story sleuthing while the main plot races forward without him. He doesn't really get involved until he storms the Mandarin hideout, and that's very late in act two. I loved Doc Ock. His role in the story fits thematically. A great villain needs to echo the journey of the hero and his obsession with personal glory over moral responsibility is the perfect contrast to Peter's story. Also he looks fantastic and the fight scenes are extraordinary. Molina is a great actor as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 4:32:34 GMT
And again, I have to disagree on the topic of Ironman 3. I never once felt he was inconsequential to the plot. Tony was very proactive throughout once he was got directly involved. I don't know where that part just came from. Even with Doc Oc? Why do people love the film adaptation of that character? Fair enough. But when does Tony actually get involved? He makes that awesome threat. His house is destroyed in an awesome scene... Then he does a bit of b story sleuthing while the main plot races forward without him. He doesn't really get involved until he storms the Mandarin hideout, and that's very late in act two. I loved Doc Ock. His role in the story fits thematically. A great villain needs to echo the journey of the hero and his obsession with personal glory over moral responsibility is the perfect contrast to Peter's story. Also he looks fantastic and the fight scenes are extraordinary. Molina is a great actor as well. He became involved the instant he made that threat and got attacked. Tony is the A story. Yes, the villain's scheme is going ahead full force under his nose, and everyone else's, as it had been for quite a while. That was the point. Everyone was off looking in all the wrong directions for the source of the problem. They never once thought to look within. Pepper just gets exposition dumped. That is not the same thing as being the protagonist. The comic did everything you just mentioned about Doc Oc better when he was married to his work. The inclusion of a wife was unnecessary and really undercut the point of his character. I agree that Molina is a great actor, but he got stuck with a shit script and a sappy Doc Oc. This is why I prefer MCU villains. The writers don't feel the need to make us feel sorry for them. I'm not here to pity the obsessive amoral lunatic building a miniature sun in the middle of New York. |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 4:51:20 GMT
But when does Tony actually get involved? He makes that awesome threat. His house is destroyed in an awesome scene... Then he does a bit of b story sleuthing while the main plot races forward without him. He doesn't really get involved until he storms the Mandarin hideout, and that's very late in act two. I loved Doc Ock. His role in the story fits thematically. A great villain needs to echo the journey of the hero and his obsession with personal glory over moral responsibility is the perfect contrast to Peter's story. Also he looks fantastic and the fight scenes are extraordinary. Molina is a great actor as well. He became involved the instant he made that threat and got attacked. No, Tony is the A story. Pepper just gets exposition dumped. That is not the same thing as being the protagonist. The comic did everything you just mentioned about Doc Oc better when he was married to his work. The inclusion of a wife was unnecessary and really undercut the point of his character. I agree that Molina is a great actor, but he got stuck with a shit script and a sappy Doc Oc. This is why I prefer MCU villains. The writers don't feel the need to make us feel sorry for them. I'm not here to pity the obsessive amoral lunatic building a miniature sun in the middle of New York. I forgot the most important point: Pepper is the one that defeats Killian, not Tony. He doesn't even get to do that. Anyways, there's a lot of other issues I have with the movie: it's tone, it's humor, the random PTSD angle, the cutesy scenes with the kid, that stupid ending where he just removes the shrapnel as if it never occurred to him before to do that. The total lack of closure with extremis and Pepper's health. As for Doc Ock, I never pitied him. I never saw that as the script's goal. The wife was just part of his motivation, a way to establish a normal scientist before his transformation. I didn't see him as a sympathetic character at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 5:04:07 GMT
He became involved the instant he made that threat and got attacked. No, Tony is the A story. Pepper just gets exposition dumped. That is not the same thing as being the protagonist. The comic did everything you just mentioned about Doc Oc better when he was married to his work. The inclusion of a wife was unnecessary and really undercut the point of his character. I agree that Molina is a great actor, but he got stuck with a shit script and a sappy Doc Oc. This is why I prefer MCU villains. The writers don't feel the need to make us feel sorry for them. I'm not here to pity the obsessive amoral lunatic building a miniature sun in the middle of New York. I forgot the most important point: Pepper is the one that defeats Killian, not Tony. He doesn't even get to do that. Anyways, there's a lot of other issues I have with the movie: it's tone, it's humor, the random PTSD angle, the cutesy scenes with the kid, that stupid ending where he just removes the shrapnel as if it never occurred to him before to do that. The total lack of closure with extremis and Pepper's health. As for Doc Ock, I never pitied him. I never saw that as the script's goal. The wife was just part of his motivation, a way to establish a normal scientist before his transformation. I didn't see him as a sympathetic character at all. I don't have an issue with Pepper killing Killian. Liked the tone, liked the humor, thought the Post Trauma was well-handled, thought the scenes with the kid were good. Eh, the part with Tony's surgery was wonky and a bit head-tilting, but it didn't bother me. Extremis would be shut down after the stunt its now deceased creators pulled. And I think they pretty much killed all the Vets who had taken part in the experiment. Seeing how Tony cured Pepper would have been nice, though. Yeah, but that's the thing. They didn't need to include the wife to do that, because Doc Oc by his very nature is one of the most motivated characters out there. And... he was never really a normal scientist. He was always about pushing the boundaries of what's possible regardless of the cost. Its a lifelong obsession stemming from his childhood. If memory serves, he was a lonely, overlooked child, which I believe factored into his need, his drive, to show others how much of a genius he is. And I think that's the crux of my issues with adaptations like the Raimi trilogy and Singer's X films. Its like they can't just let these characters be themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 5:30:03 GMT
I forgot the most important point: Pepper is the one that defeats Killian, not Tony. He doesn't even get to do that. Anyways, there's a lot of other issues I have with the movie: it's tone, it's humor, the random PTSD angle, the cutesy scenes with the kid, that stupid ending where he just removes the shrapnel as if it never occurred to him before to do that. The total lack of closure with extremis and Pepper's health. As for Doc Ock, I never pitied him. I never saw that as the script's goal. The wife was just part of his motivation, a way to establish a normal scientist before his transformation. I didn't see him as a sympathetic character at all. I don't have an issue with Pepper killing Killian. Liked the tone, liked the humor, thought the Post Trauma was well-handled, thought the scenes with the kid were good. Eh, the part with Tony's surgery was wonky and a bit head-tilting, but it didn't bother me. Extremis would be shut down after the stunt its now deceased creators pulled. And I think they pretty much killed all the Vets who had taken part in the experiment. Seeing how Tony cured Pepper would have been nice, though. Yeah, but that's the thing. They didn't need to include the wife to do that, because Doc Oc by his very nature is one of the most motivated characters out there. And... he was never really a normal scientist. He was always about pushing the boundaries of what's possible regardless of the cost. Its a lifelong obsession stemming from his childhood. If memory serves, he was a lonely, overlooked child, which I believe factored into his need, his drive, to show others how much of a genius he is. And I think that's the crux of my issues with adaptations like the Raimi trilogy and Singer's X films. Its like they can't just let these characters be themselves. There's just so many things in Iron Man 3 that irk me. Pepper killing Killian isn't so bad as the fact that she randomly becomes a freakin ninja and drop kicks his ass then throws a torpedo at him. The kid stuff has ok dialogue but is also random, manipulative and pandering. Tony removing the shrapnel destroys the mythos completely and him destroying the suits really makes for an odd transition to AoU. As for the humor, it's mostly good but weaker and cheaper than the other movies- case in point: the Mandarin twist starts with a poop joke. Crossbones, Zemo, Manadrin and Ultron differ a lot more from their comic versions and I'm fine with it. Adaptations always do that to some degree. As long as the core elements are there I'm fine with some changes, even big ones if they work for the story. But it's funny because the way you feel about Ock is exactly how I feel about Vulture... I mean, Homecoming made Vulture sympathetic didn't they?? He differs from his comic book counter part in more ways than Ock. He doesn't even really look like the character. How is that acceptable and Ock isn't? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 17:26:04 GMT
I don't have an issue with Pepper killing Killian. Liked the tone, liked the humor, thought the Post Trauma was well-handled, thought the scenes with the kid were good. Eh, the part with Tony's surgery was wonky and a bit head-tilting, but it didn't bother me. Extremis would be shut down after the stunt its now deceased creators pulled. And I think they pretty much killed all the Vets who had taken part in the experiment. Seeing how Tony cured Pepper would have been nice, though. Yeah, but that's the thing. They didn't need to include the wife to do that, because Doc Oc by his very nature is one of the most motivated characters out there. And... he was never really a normal scientist. He was always about pushing the boundaries of what's possible regardless of the cost. Its a lifelong obsession stemming from his childhood. If memory serves, he was a lonely, overlooked child, which I believe factored into his need, his drive, to show others how much of a genius he is. And I think that's the crux of my issues with adaptations like the Raimi trilogy and Singer's X films. Its like they can't just let these characters be themselves. There's just so many things in Iron Man 3 that irk me. Pepper killing Killian isn't so bad as the fact that she randomly becomes a freakin ninja and drop kicks his ass then throws a torpedo at him. The kid stuff has ok dialogue but is also random, manipulative and pandering. Tony removing the shrapnel destroys the mythos completely and him destroying the suits really makes for an odd transition to AoU. As for the humor, it's mostly good but weaker and cheaper than the other movies- case in point: the Mandarin twist starts with a poop joke. Crossbones, Zemo, Manadrin and Ultron differ a lot more from their comic versions and I'm fine with it. Adaptations always do that to some degree. As long as the core elements are there I'm fine with some changes, even big ones if they work for the story. But it's funny because the way you feel about Ock is exactly how I feel about Vulture... I mean, Homecoming made Vulture sympathetic didn't they?? He differs from his comic book counter part in more ways than Ock. He doesn't even really look like the character. How is that acceptable and Ock isn't? Jumping straight to the Vulture the other stuff we've covered: its acceptable because they didn't turn The Vulture into a sappy character like Raimi did Doc Oc. Homecoming kept its fangs and its wit while Raimi just pours schmaltz all over everything in his Spider-Man trilogy. Anytime the "touchy, feely" music starts up in one of the Raimi films, I know I'm going to need the barf bag. Toombs in Homecoming is still an absolutely loathsome person despite the baggage they gave him. The difference between Vulture and Doc is that the differences in Doc just completely change him. |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 17:29:12 GMT
There's just so many things in Iron Man 3 that irk me. Pepper killing Killian isn't so bad as the fact that she randomly becomes a freakin ninja and drop kicks his ass then throws a torpedo at him. The kid stuff has ok dialogue but is also random, manipulative and pandering. Tony removing the shrapnel destroys the mythos completely and him destroying the suits really makes for an odd transition to AoU. As for the humor, it's mostly good but weaker and cheaper than the other movies- case in point: the Mandarin twist starts with a poop joke. Crossbones, Zemo, Manadrin and Ultron differ a lot more from their comic versions and I'm fine with it. Adaptations always do that to some degree. As long as the core elements are there I'm fine with some changes, even big ones if they work for the story. But it's funny because the way you feel about Ock is exactly how I feel about Vulture... I mean, Homecoming made Vulture sympathetic didn't they?? He differs from his comic book counter part in more ways than Ock. He doesn't even really look like the character. How is that acceptable and Ock isn't? Jumping straight to the Vulture the other stuff we've covered: its acceptable because they didn't turn The Vulture into a sappy character like Raimi did Doc Oc. Homecoming kept its fangs and its wit while Raimi just pours schmaltz all over everything in his Spider-Man trilogy. Anytime the "touchy, feely" music starts up in one of the Raimi films, I know I'm going to need the barf bag. Toombs in Homecoming is still an absolutely loathsome person despite the baggage they gave him. The difference between Vulture and Doc is that the differences in Doc just completely change him. I don't see it that way. But fair enough. What about Spiderman 1's Goblin though? He was extremely comic book accurate. He was literally ripped from the pages of those original silver era comics. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 17:33:25 GMT
They turned the original personality, Norman, into a simpering twit the instant the Goblin showed up. It would have been so much more interesting had he remained a cold, calculating narcissist control freak of a businessman even after the Goblin showed up. He's literally the worst version of the Goblin ever. All the various cartoon versions have done the character better.
|
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 17:41:17 GMT
They turned the original personality, Norman, into a simpering twit the instant the Goblin showed up. It would have been so much more interesting had he remained a cold, calculating narcissist control freak of a businessman even after the Goblin showed up. He's literally the worst version of the Goblin ever. All the various cartoon versions have done the character better. But he did have a double personality in the original comics though. That wasn't added or made up. Didnt you even like Defoe's portrayal? He sounded exactly like I imagined GG would sound. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2017 17:46:40 GMT
They turned the original personality, Norman, into a simpering twit the instant the Goblin showed up. It would have been so much more interesting had he remained a cold, calculating narcissist control freak of a businessman even after the Goblin showed up. He's literally the worst version of the Goblin ever. All the various cartoon versions have done the character better. But he did have a double personality in the original comics though. That wasn't added or made up. Didnt you even like Defoe's portrayal? He sounded exactly like I imagined GG would sound. The comics and literally every other adaptation did it better, though. Not really. Defoe isn't that awesome of an actor. Jeremy Irons would have been better (and would be believable as James Franco's dad). And Irons wouldn't have been such a pussy about the prosthetic makeup they wanted to go with. |
|
|
|
Post by HaveYourselfaMerryLittleAckbar on Aug 31, 2017 18:15:19 GMT
But he did have a double personality in the original comics though. That wasn't added or made up. Didnt you even like Defoe's portrayal? He sounded exactly like I imagined GG would sound. The comics and literally every other adaptation did it better, though. Not really. Defoe isn't that awesome of an actor. Jeremy Irons would have been better (and would be believable as James Franco's dad). And Irons wouldn't have been such a pussy about the prosthetic makeup they wanted to go with. So are there really no MCU villains that you feel this way about? They took away Ultron's teeth and made him an unmenacing pun machine. Crossbones was some pretty weak tea compared to the comics. And Zemo wasn't even remotely the same character. |
|
