|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 10, 2022 20:23:07 GMT
I don’t know who said it, but as much as I liked Love And Thunder it really did show that Marvel needs to keep their directors on a short leash. Clearly with the sequels Feige puts too much faith in the directors and lets them do what they want in the sequels. This same thing happened with Guardians. Guardians 2 felt more James Gunn had wayyyy too much input and it ended up being kinda messy cause of it.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 21:29:43 GMT
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? Dude, I like most superhero stuff. The Joker & The Batman, not really. Man of Steel isn't Superman I like Green Lantern for the world it operates in. I watched the old Flash series (80s?) I didn't watch Arrow. Did watch Constantine. Flash. Supergirl I feel DC works better as TV shows Not big on Incredible Hulk. The Ironman movies are not my favorite, but they work overall I guess. I wasn't thrilled with Endgame. Haven't watched it since I saw it in the theater. Eternals was OK, not great. I thought Black Panther was better in Civil War. Felt sort of also ran in his movie.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 21:49:38 GMT
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. Because Thor is a B title hero, he doesn't get tye attention Ironman did. Yes, Ironman was a B comicbook hero, but they scored an A list actor at a budget price. Cap was more identifiable to non-comic fans in 2011. You can have all the damned expectations you want. Sorry. For my money, each film is its own adventure because it is ALWAYS an interpretation. I've read book series where I abandoned the title before the end because I didn't like the direction the author took it. It IS the author's story, so, yeah. If the author disappoints it is my right to walk away. I abandoned Harry Potter on the 4th book because I didn't care for the direction she took it. I have an obscene amount of anime & Manga. I felt sorry for Masami Tsuda at the Comic-con panel I sat in on because the anime was directed by Hideaki Anno of Evangelion fame & the audience, even though she stated her Manga was her thing, the anime was Anno's thing, kept asking her questions about the anime. Most Manga artists seem to have that attitude. That they write the Manga, the anime is the anime & the interpretation of the anime crew. In the same way, there have been so many writers of Thor since 1962, so many interpretations of the character, I don't HAVE to agree with every one of them Just like I still prefer Burtin's Batman. DC had the right to make different films by different directors. My kid loved The Batman. I didn't. And as I have said, I gave up on award shows ages ago. I don't need my opinion validated by anyone else. .
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 10, 2022 22:01:08 GMT
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. I grew up with multiple actors playing a role. Current fanboys have a cow if someone other than the original actor plays a role. Very rigid that way. So the modern fans are a bit more inflexible. I loved Solo. What are these bad qualities about GB16 that you are ranting about? It was like a fanfic. The director told his version of the story from the Ghostbuster world. A "What if" if you would. I don't particularly care for Wiig in anything I've seen her in, but other than her, McCarthy & Jones were both good. Hemsworth did well for what he was given. The villain worked .
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 22:19:52 GMT
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. Because Thor is a B title hero, he doesn't get tye attention Ironman did. Yes, Ironman was a B comicbook hero, but they scored an A list actor at a budget price. Cap was more identifiable to non-comic fans in 2011. You can have all the damned expectations you want. Sorry. For my money, each film is its own adventure because it is ALWAYS an interpretation. I've read book series where I abandoned the title before the end because I didn't like the direction the author took it. It IS the author's story, so, yeah. If the author disappoints it is my right to walk away. I abandoned Harry Potter on the 4th book because I didn't care for the direction she took it. I have an obscene amount of anime & Manga. I felt sorry for Masami Tsuda at the Comic-con panel I sat in on because the anime was directed by Hideaki Anno of Evangelion fame & the audience, even though she stated her Manga was her thing, the anime was Anno's thing, kept asking her questions about the anime. Most Manga artists seem to have that attitude. That they write the Manga, the anime is the anime & the interpretation of the anime crew. In the same way, there have been so many writers of Thor since 1962, so many interpretations of the character, I don't HAVE to agree with every one of them Just like I still prefer Burtin's Batman. DC had the right to make different films by different directors. My kid loved The Batman. I didn't. And as I have said, I gave up on award shows ages ago. I don't need my opinion validated by anyone else. . I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous - first you share an image somebody made from The Office that instructs people going to see Thor: Love and Thunder to go in with low expectations and turn off their brains and enjoy it's humor, but now you're saying that you don't care how high or low other people's expectations are for the movie - so, which is it? The position you have painted as yourself thus far is not solid - can or shouldn't we have higher expectations for this particular movie? I have argued it is justified in having them, because Marvel Studios has produced many acclaimed films that have pleased both critics, movie goers, and source material fanatics, and being handled by people with recognized talents as filmmakers. Not only that, but the majority of your comment feels directed at my other response.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 10, 2022 22:29:31 GMT
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. I grew up with multiple actors playing a role. Current fanboys have a cow if someone other than the original actor plays a role. Very rigid that way. So the modern fans are a bit more inflexible. I loved Solo. What are these bad qualities about GB16 that you are ranting about? It was like a fanfic. The director told his version of the story from the Ghostbuster world. A "What if" if you would. I don't particularly care for Wiig in anything I've seen her in, but other than her, McCarthy & Jones were both good. Hemsworth did well for what he was given. The villain worked . What does being a child of the 1960's have to do with accepting different actors in a role? Cinemagoers that were born and raised in the decades that followed have witnessed the same thing. This also has very little to do with my question to you. I didn't specify any bad qualities in 2016's Ghostbusters reboot, I asked how it being viewed through the lens of an alternate universe would alter a person's negative perception of the film, why do you think if more people likened this concept, they would accept the movie more? Personally, I didn't like the movie at all, whether or not it is in a different universe or is just a different interpretation is irrelevant to me - I do not think it is a good movie at all, period.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 11, 2022 0:21:42 GMT
I guess we're not getting the director's cut any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 11, 2022 3:02:31 GMT
I guess we're not getting the director's cut any time soon.
"Directors need to be controlled sometimes" This film is proof of that, ironically.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 11, 2022 6:45:45 GMT
I grew up with multiple actors playing a role. Current fanboys have a cow if someone other than the original actor plays a role. Very rigid that way. So the modern fans are a bit more inflexible. I loved Solo. What are these bad qualities about GB16 that you are ranting about? It was like a fanfic. The director told his version of the story from the Ghostbuster world. A "What if" if you would. I don't particularly care for Wiig in anything I've seen her in, but other than her, McCarthy & Jones were both good. Hemsworth did well for what he was given. The villain worked . What does being a child of the 1960's have to do with accepting different actors in a role? Cinemagoers that were born and raised in the decades that followed have witnessed the same thing. This also has very little to do with my question to you. I didn't specify any bad qualities in 2016's Ghostbusters reboot, I asked how it being viewed through the lens of an alternate universe would alter a person's negative perception of the film, why do you think if more people likened this concept, they would accept the movie more? Personally, I didn't like the movie at all, whether or not it is in a different universe or is just a different interpretation is irrelevant to me - I do not think it is a good movie at all, period. People who can't move past Harrison Ford as Han Solo. People who can't move past the original Ghostbusters as Ghostbusters. Not that they were the "original" The idea is old. How many comedy teams did a similar theme? I really don't care whether you see the advantage I see to being a child of the 60s making one a bit more open to different ideas. You seem pretty inflexible while I'm more water off a duck's back. Particularly trashing GB16 when you don't have a particular gripe about it.
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jul 11, 2022 7:03:53 GMT
Because Thor is a B title hero, he doesn't get tye attention Ironman did. Yes, Ironman was a B comicbook hero, but they scored an A list actor at a budget price. Cap was more identifiable to non-comic fans in 2011. You can have all the damned expectations you want. Sorry. For my money, each film is its own adventure because it is ALWAYS an interpretation. I've read book series where I abandoned the title before the end because I didn't like the direction the author took it. It IS the author's story, so, yeah. If the author disappoints it is my right to walk away. I abandoned Harry Potter on the 4th book because I didn't care for the direction she took it. I have an obscene amount of anime & Manga. I felt sorry for Masami Tsuda at the Comic-con panel I sat in on because the anime was directed by Hideaki Anno of Evangelion fame & the audience, even though she stated her Manga was her thing, the anime was Anno's thing, kept asking her questions about the anime. Most Manga artists seem to have that attitude. That they write the Manga, the anime is the anime & the interpretation of the anime crew. In the same way, there have been so many writers of Thor since 1962, so many interpretations of the character, I don't HAVE to agree with every one of them Just like I still prefer Burtin's Batman. DC had the right to make different films by different directors. My kid loved The Batman. I didn't. And as I have said, I gave up on award shows ages ago. I don't need my opinion validated by anyone else. I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous - first you share an image somebody made from The Office that instructs people going to see Thor: Love and Thunder to go in with low expectations and turn off their brains and enjoy it's humor, but now you're saying that you don't care how high or low other people's expectations are for the movie - so, which is it? The position you have painted as yourself thus far is not solid - can or shouldn't we have higher expectations for this particular movie? I have argued it is justified in having them, because Marvel Studios has produced many acclaimed films that have pleased both critics, movie goers, and source material fanatics, and being handled by people with recognized talents as filmmakers. Not only that, but the majority of your comment feels directed at my other response. We all can only speak for ourselves. You can expect Great Art from Marvel. I can laugh at people that invested in film. Like Stryker. We're putting together another movie night over on the politics board & he wants Gone With The Wind. Movie night is not great art. It’s Zombeavers or Reanimator. Ain't lookin for nothing but a good time. I watch Goodfellas like once every 5 years. I watch Die Hard a dozen times a year. Lookin for that good time. Marvel movies are good time. They have a point of course. Good over evil. With great power. Redemption. They aren't life transforming. For my money, if they are for you, that's your problem. It's like a review I read of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band. I read it in the 70s, though it was written in the 60s. The critic thought the singer's name was Billy Cheese which had all these meanings to the critic. Fine for the dude, but the name was Billy Shears so all his in depth secrets of the universe were overblown dramatization. Secrets based on false premises. So see the universe in Marvel movies. Knock yourself out. But I can think you are overdoing it. Compensating for something We're here to comment. Throw out opinions. Debate. But when the parties refuse to acknowledge the room for other ideas, it gets to Mexican standoff
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 11, 2022 7:30:14 GMT
I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous - first you share an image somebody made from The Office that instructs people going to see Thor: Love and Thunder to go in with low expectations and turn off their brains and enjoy it's humor, but now you're saying that you don't care how high or low other people's expectations are for the movie - so, which is it? The position you have painted as yourself thus far is not solid - can or shouldn't we have higher expectations for this particular movie? I have argued it is justified in having them, because Marvel Studios has produced many acclaimed films that have pleased both critics, movie goers, and source material fanatics, and being handled by people with recognized talents as filmmakers. Not only that, but the majority of your comment feels directed at my other response. We all can only speak for ourselves. You can expect Great Art from Marvel. I can laugh at people that invested in film. Like Stryker. We're putting together another movie night over on the politics board & he wants Gone With The Wind. Movie night is not great art. It’s Zombeavers or Reanimator. Ain't lookin for nothing but a good time. I watch Goodfellas like once every 5 years. I watch Die Hard a dozen times a year. Lookin for that good time. Marvel movies are good time. They have a point of course. Good over evil. With great power. Redemption. They aren't life transforming. For my money, if they are for you, that's your problem. It's like a review I read of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band. I read it in the 70s, though it was written in the 60s. The critic thought the singer's name was Billy Cheese which had all these meanings to the critic. Fine for the dude, but the name was Billy Shears so all his in depth secrets of the universe were overblown dramatization. Secrets based on false premises. So see the universe in Marvel movies. Knock yourself out. But I can think you are overdoing it. Compensating for something We're here to comment. Throw out opinions. Debate. But when the parties refuse to acknowledge the room for other ideas, it gets to Mexican standoff I didn't say that I was expecting great art out of this particular movie or that I do from Marvel Studios on the regular, my argument is that I feel people are justified in having higher expectations than the ones you laid out earlier, due to Marvel Studios' reputation for producing well-liked cinema. I honestly do not see how this could be any clearer in this conversation.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jul 11, 2022 7:40:00 GMT
What does being a child of the 1960's have to do with accepting different actors in a role? Cinemagoers that were born and raised in the decades that followed have witnessed the same thing. This also has very little to do with my question to you. I didn't specify any bad qualities in 2016's Ghostbusters reboot, I asked how it being viewed through the lens of an alternate universe would alter a person's negative perception of the film, why do you think if more people likened this concept, they would accept the movie more? Personally, I didn't like the movie at all, whether or not it is in a different universe or is just a different interpretation is irrelevant to me - I do not think it is a good movie at all, period. People who can't move past Harrison Ford as Han Solo. People who can't move past the original Ghostbusters as Ghostbusters. Not that they were the "original" The idea is old. How many comedy teams did a similar theme? I really don't care whether you see the advantage I see to being a child of the 60s making one a bit more open to different ideas. You seem pretty inflexible while I'm more water off a duck's back. Particularly trashing GB16 when you don't have a particular gripe about it. Once again, you do not answer my question - why should someone who dislikes a movie such as the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters change their mindset about it if they view it through the lens of thinking of it as taking place in another universe? I am not talking about recasts or different interpretations; I am talking about using the concept of being set on a different universe than the original should alter negative perception of a film by the consumer who does not like it. I have already made my stance clear - I think it is a bad film, I would call it a bad film even if it were a direct sequel to the first two movies, I would call it a bad film even if it was the only Ghostbusters movie ever made, I wouldn't even like it either if was called something else other than Ghostbusters even. You being a child of the 1960's is proving to have been a very irrelevant point and it has contributed nothing on your end other than being a random fact about yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jul 11, 2022 21:10:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jul 11, 2022 21:44:24 GMT
Jeeze. Please no. If he does return I hope Feige keeps him on a short leash.
|
|