Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2022 19:56:18 GMT
Short runtime seems to be a major complaint here, just as it was with Dr Strange MoM. I wonder if the Eternals critical reaction made Feige overcompensate by trying to make the movies shorter and faster paced. That would certainly be a dumb strategy because the long runtime isn’t even what made Eternals feel slow. It's possible. This film could have at least used an additional 15 minutes. I’ve heard that Gorr literally never kills anyone so it’s so odd that they cut the scenes out where he killed Grandmaster and Eitri. Besides, why go through all the trouble of getting Jeff Goldblum and Peter Dinklage back and then cutting their scenes?
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 9, 2022 20:07:55 GMT
It's possible. This film could have at least used an additional 15 minutes. I’ve heard that Gorr literally never kills anyone so it’s so odd that they cut the scenes out where he killed Grandmaster and Eitri. Besides, why go through all the trouble of getting Jeff Goldblum and Peter Dinklage back and then cutting their scenes? He kills one person on screen any other killing is done off screen. He was completely underutilized in the film, which sucks because the screen time we do get with him is my favorite parts of the film. The character is supposed to be a "God Butcher" but it rarely feels like he's earned that title.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2022 21:44:59 GMT
I’ve heard that Gorr literally never kills anyone so it’s so odd that they cut the scenes out where he killed Grandmaster and Eitri. Besides, why go through all the trouble of getting Jeff Goldblum and Peter Dinklage back and then cutting their scenes? He kills one person on screen any other killing is done off screen. He was completely underutilized in the film, which sucks because the screen time we do get with him is my favorite parts of the film. The character is supposed to be a "God Butcher" but it rarely feels like he's earned that title. I guess we should be used to the McU wasting great villains. It’s kind of their thing. Still, sounds like Bale could’ve been an all time great with more screen time.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 9, 2022 22:08:43 GMT
He kills one person on screen any other killing is done off screen. He was completely underutilized in the film, which sucks because the screen time we do get with him is my favorite parts of the film. The character is supposed to be a "God Butcher" but it rarely feels like he's earned that title. I guess we should be used to the McU wasting great villains. It’s kind of their thing. Still, sounds like Bale could’ve been an all time great with more screen time. I really wish he had more screen time. His performance was good, but man Gorr was missing a really good impactful scene. They should have let him kill some major gods.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 9, 2022 22:10:24 GMT
Speaking of Villains, it's pretty telling that the best Phase 4 villain is Green Goblin. A character that wasn't even originated in the MCU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2022 22:22:36 GMT
Speaking of Villains, it's pretty telling that the best Phase 4 villain is Green Goblin. A character that wasn't even originated in the MCU. I know right? And the second best villain is Wanda in MoM. Raimi is responsible for both.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 9, 2022 22:26:44 GMT
Speaking of Villains, it's pretty telling that the best Phase 4 villain is Green Goblin. A character that wasn't even originated in the MCU. I know right? And the second best villain is Wanda in MoM. Raimi is responsible for both. I'd say Wanda was the best villain in Phase 4. As much as I'm irritated with the direction Phase 4 is going you have to admit they actually have stronger villains than some of the earlier MCU phases. Outside of Black Widow anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2022 1:15:57 GMT
I know right? And the second best villain is Wanda in MoM. Raimi is responsible for both. I'd say Wanda was the best villain in Phase 4. As much as I'm irritated with the direction Phase 4 is going you have to admit they actually have stronger villains than some of the earlier MCU phases. Outside of Black Widow anyway. It’s a streak that goes back to Infinity War. Perhaps the positive reception of Thanos finally showed them how much a good villain could improve a superhero movie.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 2:12:58 GMT
Don’t forget they gave Ghostbusters 2016 a certified fresh. I enjoyed Ghostbusters 2016. More than that Afterlife which felt like a giant callback. But I was a child in the 60s. I learned to accept what was presented as long as it stuck to the universe rules. If Hobbits can't fly in 3 books, then suddenly sprout wings, they had better do some serious explaining. GB16 was an alternate universe/dimension. What does being a child in the 1960's have to do with Ghostbusters: Answer the Call? How does Ghostbusters: Answer the Call being an alternate universe excuse itself in the eyes of those that consider it a badly made film?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 2:19:33 GMT
Actually, I don't expect Great Cinema from Marvel. I expect to be entertained. I don't expect it to change my outlook on life. I see it in 4.5 hours. This is not a very effective, let alone good argument; Love and Thunder being a comedy doesn't mean any negative aspects in its filmmaking should be just go ignored. And being told to shut off your brain and be entertained isn't the most glowing of endorsements either, neither is telling people they shouldn't expect anything higher than that especially after the numerous times Marvel Studios has demonstrated to creating well-respected films that have changed the entire entertainment landscape. For crying out loud, Black Panther was nominated for several Academy Awards including Best Picture, why shouldn't expectations be high for recent output by the studio? Couple that with Taika Waititi being an Academy Award Winner as well.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 16:37:48 GMT
I enjoyed Ghostbusters 2016. More than that Afterlife which felt like a giant callback. But I was a child in the 60s. I learned to accept what was presented as long as it stuck to the universe rules. If Hobbits can't fly in 3 books, then suddenly sprout wings, they had better do some serious explaining. GB16 was an alternate universe/dimension. What does being a child in the 1960's have to do with Ghostbusters: Answer the Call? How does Ghostbusters: Answer the Call being an alternate universe excuse itself in the eyes of those that consider it a badly made film? We had crazy TV. Wild Wild West was like other westerns set in the post civil war era, but decidedly sci-fi. My Mother the Car where a guy's mom came back as a car. Gilligan's Island which had some sci-fi sort of stuff to it. It's About Time where Astronauts ended up in the caveman days. GB16 wasn't badly made. Just because it was a different take. Like on Dark Shadows where they had parallel time, etc. Same faces living different lives.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 16:44:22 GMT
Actually, I don't expect Great Cinema from Marvel. I expect to be entertained. I don't expect it to change my outlook on life. I see it in 4.5 hours. This is not a very effective, let alone good argument; Love and Thunder being a comedy doesn't mean any negative aspects in its filmmaking should be just go ignored. And being told to shut off your brain and be entertained isn't the most glowing of endorsements either, neither is telling people they shouldn't expect anything higher than that especially after the numerous times Marvel Studios has demonstrated to creating well-respected films that have changed the entire entertainment landscape. For crying out loud, Black Panther was nominated for several Academy Awards including Best Picture, why shouldn't expectations be high for recent output by the studio? Couple that with Taika Waititi being an Academy Award Winner as well. I don't expect Fast & Furious to win an Oscar. The Oscars are something of a joke, dude. Its well known they often compensate actors for not winning prior years like Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy. Kenneth Branagh won best director for Henry V in 1989. That mean Thor should have been nominated? Thor is a character they really don't know what to do with.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 16:51:23 GMT
[/a][/quote]
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 17:20:08 GMT
This is not a very effective, let alone good argument; Love and Thunder being a comedy doesn't mean any negative aspects in its filmmaking should be just go ignored. And being told to shut off your brain and be entertained isn't the most glowing of endorsements either, neither is telling people they shouldn't expect anything higher than that especially after the numerous times Marvel Studios has demonstrated to creating well-respected films that have changed the entire entertainment landscape. For crying out loud, Black Panther was nominated for several Academy Awards including Best Picture, why shouldn't expectations be high for recent output by the studio? Couple that with Taika Waititi being an Academy Award Winner as well. I don't expect Fast & Furious to win an Oscar. The Oscars are something of a joke, dude. Its well known they often compensate actors for not winning prior years like Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy. Kenneth Branagh won best director for Henry V in 1989. That mean Thor should have been nominated? Thor is a character they really don't know what to do with. We're not talking about Fast and the Furious, we are talking about Marvel Studios and their output. Whether or not you consider the Oscars to be something of a joke is irrelevant to my point - Marvel Studios' production of Black Panther was critically acclaimed to the point of being nominated for several Academy Awards, including Best Picture - the first superhero movie to do so. Therefore, expectations are justified in being higher. Couple that with Taika Waititi winning an Academy Award for Jojo Rabbit, his last film before Love and Thunder. Sir Kenneth Branagh didn't win Best Director for Henry V by the Academy Awards, he was nominated. The only Oscar that production won was for Best Costume Design. So, you agree that Thor is a character Marvel Studios doesn't know what to do with, yet you encourage people to shut their brains off and don't expect anything substantial from a film presentation? That statement and what you say prior give off two totally different attitudes on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 17:30:30 GMT
What does being a child in the 1960's have to do with Ghostbusters: Answer the Call? How does Ghostbusters: Answer the Call being an alternate universe excuse itself in the eyes of those that consider it a badly made film? We had crazy TV. Wild Wild West was like other westerns set in the post civil war era, but decidedly sci-fi. My Mother the Car where a guy's mom came back as a car. Gilligan's Island which had some sci-fi sort of stuff to it. It's About Time where Astronauts ended up in the caveman days. GB16 wasn't badly made. Just because it was a different take. Like on Dark Shadows where they had parallel time, etc. Same faces living different lives. You did not answer my question - what does being a child of the 1960's have to do with liking a movie such as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call? Is there a consensus that if you were a child of that decade you will enjoy the movie the most? This argument reads strange because the property was established in the 1980's. That still doesn't answer my question, how does Ghostbusters: Answer the Call being an alternate universe excuse itself in the eyes of those that consider it a badly made film? Going by this suggestion as it appears on face value, are we to accept any and all cinematic interpretations if they are divisive to of poor quality because we can see them through the lens of taking place in an alternate universe? If memory serves, and I could be wrong so apologies if there are any being made, you oppose director Zack Snyder's interpretation of Superman, but given the argument you have made shouldn't you be accepting of that version because it takes places on a different universe within DC?
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 18:44:17 GMT
I don't expect Fast & Furious to win an Oscar. The Oscars are something of a joke, dude. Its well known they often compensate actors for not winning prior years like Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy. Kenneth Branagh won best director for Henry V in 1989. That mean Thor should have been nominated? Thor is a character they really don't know what to do with. We're not talking about Fast and the Furious, we are talking about Marvel Studios and their output. Whether or not you consider the Oscars to be something of a joke is irrelevant to my point - Marvel Studios' production of Black Panther was critically acclaimed to the point of being nominated for several Academy Awards, including Best Picture - the first superhero movie to do so. Therefore, expectations are justified in being higher. Couple that with Taika Waititi winning an Academy Award for Jojo Rabbit, his last film before Love and Thunder. Sir Kenneth Branagh didn't win Best Director for Henry V by the Academy Awards, he was nominated. The only Oscar that production won was for Best Costume Design. So, you agree that Thor is a character Marvel Studios doesn't know what to do with, yet you encourage people to shut their brains off and don't expect anything substantial from a film presentation? That statement and what you say prior give off two totally different attitudes on the matter. I really don't get the devotion to the Oscars. Like the Ironman was nominated for visual effects in 2009. As was Ironman 2 in 2011 As did Avengers in 2013... Which is my problem with the damned things. I have loved movies all my life. The kind of movies I like tend not to win. The joke once was to win an Oscar the actor had to get ugly. I don't need to live my life vicariously through a movie screen. I don't give a fuck if it gets any damned awards because those things are voted in by ACADEMY MEMBERS who often are dried up old facts who don't watch sci-fi/fantasy. They are pompous & full of themselves. Did Black Panther win before or after the ruckus over blacks being overlooked? I don't watch the awards (since the 1980s sometime) & really don't pay attention. I DO pay attention to box office because that's how sequels happen. If it loses money, no sequel in most instances I pay my money to be entertained. If I think about the outside world during the movie, it failed to keep me entertained. All I need is whatever I paid for the tickets ($10 for 2 matinee tickets) so I need $5 of entertainment value out of Thor on Tuesday. I don't need to be moved. I don't need it to get any awards. I want to have fun getting lost in the plot. I do not need to live my life vicariously through a movie screen. How many Oscars did the Academy give the Marx Brothers for their movies? Errol Flynn? Who fucking cares about pretentious stuff? When I discovered they made a Thor movie, I was terrified they were going to ruin him. I was happier with him being overlooked. The Russos didn't do right by him in Endgame. I understand they wanted to give Tony the win so they had to take Thor & Hulk out of play but Thor would not have turned into Volstagg. He would have become reckless, wanting to die in battle to go to Valhalla. But they got him out of the way from using the glove.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 18:52:56 GMT
We had crazy TV. Wild Wild West was like other westerns set in the post civil war era, but decidedly sci-fi. My Mother the Car where a guy's mom came back as a car. Gilligan's Island which had some sci-fi sort of stuff to it. It's About Time where Astronauts ended up in the caveman days. GB16 wasn't badly made. Just because it was a different take. Like on Dark Shadows where they had parallel time, etc. Same faces living different lives. You did not answer my question - what does being a child of the 1960's have to do with liking a movie such as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call? Is there a consensus that if you were a child of that decade you will enjoy the movie the most? This argument reads strange because the property was established in the 1980's. That still doesn't answer my question, how does Ghostbusters: Answer the Call being an alternate universe excuse itself in the eyes of those that consider it a badly made film? Going by this suggestion as it appears on face value, are we to accept any and all cinematic interpretations if they are divisive to of poor quality because we can see them through the lens of taking place in an alternate universe? If memory serves, and I could be wrong so apologies if there are any being made, you oppose director Zack Snyder's interpretation of Superman, but given the argument you have made shouldn't you be accepting of that version because it takes places on a different universe within DC? I learned when I was under 10 to accept the reality presented in the story. It doesn't have to obey the rules of the real world. It doesn't have to follow mythology. It is the interpretation of the writer or the director. Dracula has been on screen many times. Variations Vampires.as well have been changed over the decades. Werewolves Ghosts. Whoever is presenting the story takes what they want. How many times has someone used the seeds thing in a vampire movie? It's part of the folklore that one way to keep a vampire away is to strew seeds on the road from the graveyard to the town because the vampire has to count all the seeds. So, yeah. Whatever mythology they use. Thor's goats appeared in the movie. No mythology they were the screaming type, but they were the eat them for dinner & they revive the next day. They mentioned his belt in Spiderman: Homecoming. Can't say it's been mentioned again. Hell, I was happy Sif survived after Waititi dispatched the Warriors 3 unceremoniously in Ragnarok
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Jul 10, 2022 18:57:35 GMT
You did not answer my question - what does being a child of the 1960's have to do with liking a movie such as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call? Is there a consensus that if you were a child of that decade you will enjoy the movie the most? This argument reads strange because the property was established in the 1980's. That still doesn't answer my question, how does Ghostbusters: Answer the Call being an alternate universe excuse itself in the eyes of those that consider it a badly made film? Going by this suggestion as it appears on face value, are we to accept any and all cinematic interpretations if they are divisive to of poor quality because we can see them through the lens of taking place in an alternate universe? If memory serves, and I could be wrong so apologies if there are any being made, you oppose director Zack Snyder's interpretation of Superman, but given the argument you have made shouldn't you be accepting of that version because it takes places on a different universe within DC? I learned when I was under 10 to accept the reality presented in the story. It doesn't have to obey the rules of the real world. It doesn't have to follow mythology. It is the interpretation of the writer or the director. Dracula has been on screen many times. Variations Vampires.as well have been changed over the decades. Werewolves Ghosts. Whoever is presenting the story takes what they want. How many times has someone used the seeds thing in a vampire movie? It's part of the folklore that one way to keep a vampire away is to strew seeds on the road from the graveyard to the town because the vampire has to count all the seeds. So, yeah. Whatever mythology they use. Thor's goats appeared in the movie. No mythology they were the screaming type, but they were the eat them for dinner & they revive the next day. They mentioned his belt in Spiderman: Homecoming. Can't say it's been mentioned again. Hell, I was happy Sif survived after Waititi dispatched the Warriors 3 unceremoniously in Ragnarok Have you ever seen an MCU film that you didn’t like?
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 19:42:28 GMT
We're not talking about Fast and the Furious, we are talking about Marvel Studios and their output. Whether or not you consider the Oscars to be something of a joke is irrelevant to my point - Marvel Studios' production of Black Panther was critically acclaimed to the point of being nominated for several Academy Awards, including Best Picture - the first superhero movie to do so. Therefore, expectations are justified in being higher. Couple that with Taika Waititi winning an Academy Award for Jojo Rabbit, his last film before Love and Thunder. Sir Kenneth Branagh didn't win Best Director for Henry V by the Academy Awards, he was nominated. The only Oscar that production won was for Best Costume Design. So, you agree that Thor is a character Marvel Studios doesn't know what to do with, yet you encourage people to shut their brains off and don't expect anything substantial from a film presentation? That statement and what you say prior give off two totally different attitudes on the matter. I really don't get the devotion to the Oscars. Like the Ironman was nominated for visual effects in 2009. As was Ironman 2 in 2011 As did Avengers in 2013... Which is my problem with the damned things. I have loved movies all my life. The kind of movies I like tend not to win. The joke once was to win an Oscar the actor had to get ugly. I don't need to live my life vicariously through a movie screen. I don't give a fuck if it gets any damned awards because those things are voted in by ACADEMY MEMBERS who often are dried up old facts who don't watch sci-fi/fantasy. They are pompous & full of themselves. Did Black Panther win before or after the ruckus over blacks being overlooked? I don't watch the awards (since the 1980s sometime) & really don't pay attention. I DO pay attention to box office because that's how sequels happen. If it loses money, no sequel in most instances I pay my money to be entertained. If I think about the outside world during the movie, it failed to keep me entertained. All I need is whatever I paid for the tickets ($10 for 2 matinee tickets) so I need $5 of entertainment value out of Thor on Tuesday. I don't need to be moved. I don't need it to get any awards. I want to have fun getting lost in the plot. I do not need to live my life vicariously through a movie screen. How many Oscars did the Academy give the Marx Brothers for their movies? Errol Flynn? Who fucking cares about pretentious stuff? When I discovered they made a Thor movie, I was terrified they were going to ruin him. I was happier with him being overlooked. The Russos didn't do right by him in Endgame. I understand they wanted to give Tony the win so they had to take Thor & Hulk out of play but Thor would not have turned into Volstagg. He would have become reckless, wanting to die in battle to go to Valhalla. But they got him out of the way from using the glove. merh you completely missing the point of my argument - I am saying that having high expectations for Thor: Love and Thunder release is justified because of the many acclaimed films Marvel Studios have released over the last 14 years, some of which are widely considered to be game changers both for superhero cinema and blockbuster cinema. It is also justified in having high expectation given the talent both in front and behind the camera, because you have Taika Waititi, who is critically successful as a filmmaker, acting, writing, and directing the picture. Because of this, I find the argument that we should lower our expectations and turn off our minds so that we may best enjoy this movie to be both weak, ineffective, and sends the wrong kind of message to the filmmakers that they should settle with their artistic goals and not aim to tell better stories for the screen, because consumers would accept whatever they do anyway in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 20:03:44 GMT
You did not answer my question - what does being a child of the 1960's have to do with liking a movie such as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call? Is there a consensus that if you were a child of that decade you will enjoy the movie the most? This argument reads strange because the property was established in the 1980's. That still doesn't answer my question, how does Ghostbusters: Answer the Call being an alternate universe excuse itself in the eyes of those that consider it a badly made film? Going by this suggestion as it appears on face value, are we to accept any and all cinematic interpretations if they are divisive to of poor quality because we can see them through the lens of taking place in an alternate universe? If memory serves, and I could be wrong so apologies if there are any being made, you oppose director Zack Snyder's interpretation of Superman, but given the argument you have made shouldn't you be accepting of that version because it takes places on a different universe within DC? I learned when I was under 10 to accept the reality presented in the story. It doesn't have to obey the rules of the real world. It doesn't have to follow mythology. It is the interpretation of the writer or the director. Dracula has been on screen many times. Variations Vampires.as well have been changed over the decades. Werewolves Ghosts. Whoever is presenting the story takes what they want. How many times has someone used the seeds thing in a vampire movie? It's part of the folklore that one way to keep a vampire away is to strew seeds on the road from the graveyard to the town because the vampire has to count all the seeds. So, yeah. Whatever mythology they use. Thor's goats appeared in the movie. No mythology they were the screaming type, but they were the eat them for dinner & they revive the next day. They mentioned his belt in Spiderman: Homecoming. Can't say it's been mentioned again. Hell, I was happy Sif survived after Waititi dispatched the Warriors 3 unceremoniously in Ragnarok You did not answer my questions - firstly, how does being a child of the 1960's give to the conclusion that one is able to enjoy the 2016 version of Ghostbusters? The mindset you are presenting, that you learn to accept different interpretations of a story and character, is not restricted to people born and raised in the 1960's. Secondly, once again please address how viewing the 2016 Ghostbusters film as being placed on a different universe excuse its bad qualities to those who are not fond of the product? I would say telling such to a person who doesn't like that particular movie will not change their mindset towards it, and they'll still view it as a badly made motion picture. And if mythology is all open for interpretation and we should accept that, should you accept Zack Snyder's interpretation of Superman, which I do believe you have expressed a disliking towards? This argument can only go so far, I would say, because in some instances creative liberties being taken with mythologies do not always work in the favor of the movie especially if they're not telling good stories.
|
|