|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 16:06:21 GMT
Like I said, I criticize something in an MCU movie and you will defend it to no end. Cap's costume in Avengers was widely criticized, by critics, fans and general audiences alike. There's really no logical reason why his modern-day suit in Avengers would be campier and look more outdated than his suit in CATFA. It's just plain bad costume design, something that MCU fixed in the next installments of Cap. One of MCU's strongest assets is that it learns from its mistakes and actually listens to fans. Does not mean they don't make mistakes. Another one is how Thor, a thousand year old being, learned humility, had a complete change in personality and found the love of his life after only 2 days on Earth. No matter which way you look at it, that's just some very weak writing and logic. The logical reason was stated explicitly in the film. I'm not just making something up. They didn't fix it in the next installment, they were always going to introduce a better suit, so the fans telling them to had nothing to do with it. Nobody is arguing that the suit wasn't campy. It was supposed to be campy, which is why Coulson says he had design influence. I really don't see what your criticism is, and my defense is completely valid, so do you expect me to just ignore the purpose of the suit as stated openly in the film?
Thor's personality change. Yeah I mean ok it was pretty quick, but is this really a problem? He thought he was responsible for his dad's death, the last words of which were to express displeasure worthy of banishing him, he lost all of his power, he was in a foreign land presumably forever, and some hot girl was really nice to him. If that were me, yes I'd like her pretty quick and be pissed when I found out my brother was fucking with me, so if that happened a touch fast, ok. It played well. Could they have drafted a version that took weeks, yes. Would it have been any better? I have no idea. I don't see anything bad about this. It worked fine. In fact I'm now excited, I'm going to go watch Thor again right now.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 16:07:29 GMT
I actually liked Cap's costume in Avengers. It was clear they were going for a more comic book inspired look. I agree, and I especially loved that they set it up as being inspired by Coulson's trading cards, which were based on the more comic book inspired bond salesman cap outfit. I enjoyed that actually.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 31, 2017 16:08:10 GMT
Ooh, never. That implies there's no reason to go back. No doubt Marvel has gone above and beyond. But they certainly weren't the first. They're just the most successful at it. And they've shown with proper planning and care, it can be both financially and critically successful. It's ironic that Universal seems to be copying Marvel since their Universal Horror Monster series are one of the first and most famous cinematic shared universes. I love them. Even with all their inconsistencies.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 31, 2017 16:17:47 GMT
I actually liked Cap's costume in Avengers. It was clear they were going for a more comic book inspired look. I agree, and I especially loved that they set it up as being inspired by Coulson's trading cards, which were based on the more comic book inspired bond salesman cap outfit. I enjoyed that actually. Yeah. Coulson specifically mentions he's made some alterations. It was clearly a fanboy's idea of what a super hero costume should be. Not as tactical as his other outfits, but I think it serves a bigger purpose: this is the first movie with Avengers teaming up. It's the first public appearance of Captain America in over 70 years. It makes sense that he'd look like a super hero. Almost like he'd be a shining example of who the Avengers are. They're not to be feared. Unlike say, the X-Men. Who work more as covert teams all in black. Essentially, that fanboy costume did what Man of Steel couldn't do for Superman (and this is coming from a huge Superman fan). It made Cap and by extension the Avengers look like heroes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 16:24:36 GMT
Disagreed. But you think all these movies are perfect, so it's not surprising. Yeah I love the humor and all of the little details they packed into that film. I don't know what's not to like, but I'm glad I do. This is a unique film series in all of cinematic history and it's great to enjoy every detail. If the MCU were a man, you'd marry him.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 16:24:37 GMT
I agree, and I especially loved that they set it up as being inspired by Coulson's trading cards, which were based on the more comic book inspired bond salesman cap outfit. I enjoyed that actually. Yeah. Coulson specifically mentions he's made some alterations. It was clearly a fanboy's idea of what a super hero costume should be. Not as tactical as his other outfits, but I think it serves a bigger purpose: this is the first movie with Avengers teaming up. It's the first public appearance of Captain America in over 70 years. It makes sense that he'd look like a super hero. Almost like he'd be a shining example of who the Avengers are. They're not to be feared. Unlike say, the X-Men. Who work more as covert teams all in black. Essentially, that fanboy costume did what Man of Steel couldn't do for Superman (and this is coming from a huge Superman fan). It made Cap and by extension the Avengers look like heroes. I completely agree.
It's a great touch.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 16:26:54 GMT
Like I said, I criticize something in an MCU movie and you will defend it to no end. Cap's costume in Avengers was widely criticized, by critics, fans and general audiences alike. There's really no logical reason why his modern-day suit in Avengers would be campier and look more outdated than his suit in CATFA. It's just plain bad costume design, something that MCU fixed in the next installments of Cap. One of MCU's strongest assets is that it learns from its mistakes and actually listens to fans. Does not mean they don't make mistakes. Another one is how Thor, a thousand year old being, learned humility, had a complete change in personality and found the love of his life after only 2 days on Earth. No matter which way you look at it, that's just some very weak writing and logic. The logical reason was stated explicitly in the film. I'm not just making something up. They didn't fix it in the next installment, they were always going to introduce a better suit, so the fans telling them to had nothing to do with it. Nobody is arguing that the suit wasn't campy. It was supposed to be campy, which is why Coulson says he had design influence. I really don't see what your criticism is, and my defense is completely valid, so do you expect me to just ignore the purpose of the suit as stated openly in the film?
Thor's personality change. Yeah I mean ok it was pretty quick, but is this really a problem? He thought he was responsible for his dad's death, the last words of which were to express displeasure worthy of banishing him, he lost all of his power, he was in a foreign land presumably forever, and some hot girl was really nice to him. If that were me, yes I'd like her pretty quick and be pissed when I found out my brother was fucking with me, so if that happened a touch fast, ok. It played well. Could they have drafted a version that took weeks, yes. Would it have been any better? I have no idea. I don't see anything bad about this. It worked fine. In fact I'm now excited, I'm going to go watch Thor again right now.
Coulson said that he took the liberty of adding his design input to the suit. He did not say, "Oh I purposely made your suit campy to match your pinup-suit back when you were making promotional rounds". So when you say it was meant to be campy, that's basically just your opinion, based on how you understand Coulson's influence. It was definitely not stated that it was supposed to be campy. As for Thor's personality change, yes, it's a problem if it was too short. It's called proper character development. That aspect of his character wasn't properly developed, and so his personality change didn't feel natural. It felt contrived and weak. And that is a flaw. Take note that a flaw is not a plothole nor is it some glaring mistake. A flaw can simply be a weakness. Flawed implies not perfect. And in this case, having such a huge personality change over 2 days when you're around 1000 years old IS a flaw. And him falling for Jane just because she was a "hot nice chick" makes Thor look really shallow.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 16:35:04 GMT
Coulson said that he took the liberty of adding his design input to the suit. He did not say, "Oh I purposely made your suit campy to match your pinup-suit back when you were making promotional rounds". So when you say it was meant to be campy, that's basically just your opinion, based on how you understand Coulson's influence. It was definitely not stated that it was supposed to be campy. As for Thor's personality change, yes, it's a problem if it was too short. It's called proper character development. That aspect of his character wasn't properly developed, and so his personality change didn't feel natural. It felt contrived and weak. And that is a flaw. Take note that a flaw is not a plothole nor is it some glaring mistake. A flaw can simply be a weakness. Flawed implies not perfect. And in this case, having such a huge personality change over 2 days when you're around 1000 years old IS a flaw. And him falling for Jane just because she was a "hot nice chick" makes Thor look really shallow. You saw the trading cards right? It was based on that. That's one of the reasons why Coulson made such a big deal out of them. That was his vision of Cap. I didn't even know this was in debate. I thought it was obvious. And that being the case, it's a benefit to the film by adding some depth to why it is the way it is. You make it sound like they just created a cheesy suit because they fucked up, which isn't the case.
I found Thor's arc to be proper character development. It felt natural to me. As I said, I'm not sure writing the narrative so that it took longer would make the story any better. And falling for a hot nice chick doesn't make you shallow. Try being anywhere alone for a couple of days, especially some place you don't want to be, when you just lost something major, and see how you feel when some really nice cute girl says hi to you and tell me it doesn't make your day.
Did you have another example of something bad? These don't pose any problem as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 16:47:27 GMT
Coulson said that he took the liberty of adding his design input to the suit. He did not say, "Oh I purposely made your suit campy to match your pinup-suit back when you were making promotional rounds". So when you say it was meant to be campy, that's basically just your opinion, based on how you understand Coulson's influence. It was definitely not stated that it was supposed to be campy. As for Thor's personality change, yes, it's a problem if it was too short. It's called proper character development. That aspect of his character wasn't properly developed, and so his personality change didn't feel natural. It felt contrived and weak. And that is a flaw. Take note that a flaw is not a plothole nor is it some glaring mistake. A flaw can simply be a weakness. Flawed implies not perfect. And in this case, having such a huge personality change over 2 days when you're around 1000 years old IS a flaw. And him falling for Jane just because she was a "hot nice chick" makes Thor look really shallow. You saw the trading cards right? It was based on that. That's one of the reasons why Coulson made such a big deal out of them. That was his vision of Cap. I didn't even know this was in debate. I thought it was obvious. And that being the case, it's a benefit to the film by adding some depth to why it is the way it is. You make it sound like they just created a cheesy suit because they fucked up, which isn't the case.
I found Thor's arc to be proper character development. It felt natural to me. As I said, I'm not sure writing the narrative so that it took longer would make the story any better. And falling for a hot nice chick doesn't make you shallow. Try being anywhere alone for a couple of days, especially some place you don't want to be, when you just lost something major, and see how you feel when some really nice cute girl says hi to you and tell me it doesn't make your day.
Did you have another example of something bad? These don't pose any problem as far as I can tell.
Yeah I saw the trading cards. Prove that it was supposed to be based on the trading cards. Just because Coulson keeps a trading card with him doesn't mean that he designed the suit to match that. You're jumping to conclusions. Pretty sure I can survive alone for 2 days in a crappy environment without falling in love with the first hot chick I meet. Will I be happy for her company? Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'll develop such a strong connection to her that I will throw away my princely duties just to be with her. That makes Thor look immature and completely negates the supposed personality development he had. As for Thor's personality change... like I said, it doesn't matter what criticism I make, you'll turn a blind eye to it and cover your ears. If you think it only takes 2 days to completely change habits and traits you've developed for hundreds of years well... then there's no reasoning with you. I just listed 2 completely legitimate problems of MCU movies. Problems that have been pointed out time and again by multiple people. Just because YOU don't think they're problems doesn't mean that they aren't. I bet if I say that Malekith is a ridiculously weakly developed villain that you'd go and defend that as well.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 17:03:39 GMT
Yeah I saw the trading cards. Prove that it was supposed to be based on the trading cards. Just because Coulson keeps a trading card with him doesn't mean that he designed the suit to match that. You're jumping to conclusions. Pretty sure I can survive alone for 2 days in a crappy environment without falling in love with the first hot chick I meet. Will I be happy for her company? Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'll develop such a strong connection to her that I will throw away my princely duties just to be with her. That makes Thor look immature and completely negates the supposed personality development he had. As for Thor's personality change... like I said, it doesn't matter what criticism I make, you'll turn a blind eye to it and cover your ears. If you think it only takes 2 days to completely change habits and traits you've developed for hundreds of years well... then there's no reasoning with you. I just listed 2 completely legitimate problems of MCU movies. Problems that have been pointed out time and again by multiple people. Just because YOU don't think they're problems doesn't mean that they aren't. I bet if I say that Malekith is a ridiculously weakly developed villain that you'd go and defend that as well. I don't need to prove it. You said it was a flaw. I explained why I don't see it as one, and I'm not sure why you're more interested in making a negative out of it.
So did you have a problem when the Godfather had Michael fall in love with Apollonia instantly during "the thunderbolt" scene? Because that was one of the best scenes in the film. I've had a couple of instant connections with girls, so this seems very realistic if you ask me. It makes it incredibly powerful actually.
It's weird you're saying I turn a blind eye to criticism, which assumes that your criticism is the proper view, and it's not you turning a blind eye to the well crafted nature of these scenes.
If all you were going to do is list these two examples and say they're problems whether I like it or not, then I'd kindly suggest it is you who is not open to even attempting to look at these as well done elements of the film. The point for me is to enjoy them, I don't know about you.
I told you I enjoy everything in the MCU, and while Malekith certainly doesn't get a lot of backstory I agree, did he need to? We understand that his dark universe origin has been overtaken by the continued development and expansion of the universe and he wants it back the way it was. I compare it to a native American who might wish to return America to the natural setting his/her people lived in before settlers overran the place. To me that makes him somewhat compelling, and I did enjoy his look and no nonsense serious personality.
Is there something that is actually bad in the MCU?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 18:04:33 GMT
Is there something that is actually bad in the MCU?
Iron fist was pretty bad...
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 18:34:41 GMT
Is there something that is actually bad in the MCU?
Iron fist was pretty bad... It was bland, I'll give you that.
I think if there was something added to it though, everything else would work just fine as it is. IDK what. Perhaps if Bakuto and his faction's motivations were a little stronger. That's the first thing that comes to mind, but I think the issue is that something is missing, and that with that, the show would have been on another level. As it stands, it's just a very bare bones intro. Does that make it bad? Well it's not great, but I'll say it's passable as long as the second season really kicks the series into gear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2017 19:00:38 GMT
Iron fist was pretty bad... It was bland, I'll give you that.
I think if there was something added to it though, everything else would work just fine as it is. IDK what. Perhaps if Bakuto and his faction's motivations were a little stronger. That's the first thing that comes to mind, but I think the issue is that something is missing, and that with that, the show would have been on another level. As it stands, it's just a very bare bones intro. Does that make it bad? Well it's not great, but I'll say it's passable as long as the second season really kicks the series into gear.
Yes i know what you are saying. I can't really put my finger but something just felt off. I think it was a mix of corporate BS and lack of the fantastic and bland acting. If i had to say though and point out something i consider the worst thing in the MCU and I could consider actually bad, this is it. Even season 1 of AOS ranks higher than this. I need kun Lun, i need the dragon, i need awsome kung fu. Even the intro is meh, everything is meh
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 19:10:00 GMT
Yeah I saw the trading cards. Prove that it was supposed to be based on the trading cards. Just because Coulson keeps a trading card with him doesn't mean that he designed the suit to match that. You're jumping to conclusions. Pretty sure I can survive alone for 2 days in a crappy environment without falling in love with the first hot chick I meet. Will I be happy for her company? Absolutely. Doesn't mean I'll develop such a strong connection to her that I will throw away my princely duties just to be with her. That makes Thor look immature and completely negates the supposed personality development he had. As for Thor's personality change... like I said, it doesn't matter what criticism I make, you'll turn a blind eye to it and cover your ears. If you think it only takes 2 days to completely change habits and traits you've developed for hundreds of years well... then there's no reasoning with you. I just listed 2 completely legitimate problems of MCU movies. Problems that have been pointed out time and again by multiple people. Just because YOU don't think they're problems doesn't mean that they aren't. I bet if I say that Malekith is a ridiculously weakly developed villain that you'd go and defend that as well. I don't need to prove it. You said it was a flaw. I explained why I don't see it as one, and I'm not sure why you're more interested in making a negative out of it.
So did you have a problem when the Godfather had Michael fall in love with Apollonia instantly during "the thunderbolt" scene? Because that was one of the best scenes in the film. I've had a couple of instant connections with girls, so this seems very realistic if you ask me. It makes it incredibly powerful actually.
It's weird you're saying I turn a blind eye to criticism, which assumes that your criticism is the proper view, and it's not you turning a blind eye to the well crafted nature of these scenes.
If all you were going to do is list these two examples and say they're problems whether I like it or not, then I'd kindly suggest it is you who is not open to even attempting to look at these as well done elements of the film. The point for me is to enjoy them, I don't know about you.
I told you I enjoy everything in the MCU, and while Malekith certainly doesn't get a lot of backstory I agree, did he need to? We understand that his dark universe origin has been overtaken by the continued development and expansion of the universe and he wants it back the way it was. I compare it to a native American who might wish to return America to the natural setting his/her people lived in before settlers overran the place. To me that makes him somewhat compelling, and I did enjoy his look and no nonsense serious personality.
Is there something that is actually bad in the MCU?
Ok, let me take this from a different angle so you can understand better. Is there something that is actually bad in the DCEU?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 19:10:43 GMT
Yes i know what you are saying. I can't really put my finger but something just felt off. I think it was a mix of corporate BS and lack of the fantastic and bland acting. If i had to say though and point out something i consider the worst thing in the MCU and I could consider actually bad, this is it. Even season 1 of AOS ranks higher than this. I need kun Lun, i need the dragon, i need awsome kung fu. Even the intro is meh, everything is meh I agree. Maybe the same thing but a little more Kun Lun, a little more relevant Hand, and I'm not sure about the acting because I think a lot of it was there wasn't much material to work with. That's why it felt like it was running in place sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 19:44:30 GMT
Ok, let me take this from a different angle so you can understand better. Is there something that is actually bad in the DCEU? Well first of all, I'm trying to help you understand better, but I'm also willing to, which is why I asked for examples of something ill conceived or poorly executed in the MCU.
And yes, Martha and Tornadocide are prime examples of the writer trying to get to a conclusion without regard to the means of getting there. Tornadocide for instance very transparently is the writer saying to themselves, "Ok I want Johnathan to die willingly in a sacrificial act, while stressing the point that Clark's powers can't be used to help in the interest of secrecy. So I'm going to use a tornado. Now why would Johnathan and Clark both be near the tornado, but only Johnathan is in danger. Oh I got it, the dog won't get out of the car so Johnathan will have to go back for him. But I don't want to kill the dog, so he'll just runaway and won't matter any more to the scene because all I needed was an excuse to get Johnathan back to the car. Oh and Clark didn't go because I needed Johnathan to die, but it would have made more sense given that he has no chance of dying in the tornado, and he wouldn't have gotten stuck and there would be no reason to think he'd reveal his powers, but Johnathan goes anyway. So now I need an excuse for the Tornado to suddenly be close enough to kill Johnathan, but still make it believable that it was far enough away for him to decide to go back for the plot convenience dog in the first place. So I'll have to have a plot convenience Johnathan gets stuck. And there we have it. Clark couldn't have gone for the dog in the first place, but now he can't come because it might reveal his powers, which might be bad even though we don't know that, and Johnathan won't even try to run away. And scene." It's a string of plot conveniences that clearly weren't very well planned. It's just the first thing whoever wrote that thought of.
How about a clear example of Lois falling away from the black hole with all of the other cars flying up past her. There is no way to make that remotely make sense, especially when Superman has to fly with all his might to keep her from being sucked in right after he catches her. It's a bad scene.
Jimmy Olson dying without even being named so there is zero emotional impact, and basically for no reason.
Martha doesn't even make sense from the character's point of view. Either of them. It's very much like Tornadocide where it stands out as a knee jerk reaction scene that seemed cool when the writer first thought of it but wasn't very well planned.
So all of these things I'm talking about the writing and planning of a scene. And there are no scenes like these in the MCU. Thor learning a lesson in a few days is a conscious decision for the development of all of the characters so that they don't have to go through this "we've known each other for months" metamorphosis. It doesn't take away from the events he experienced to change his outlook. It just keeps everything fresh from the perspective of all of the characters involved.
Lex
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 19:47:37 GMT
Ok, let me take this from a different angle so you can understand better. Is there something that is actually bad in the DCEU? Well first of all, I'm trying to help you understand better, but I'm also willing to, which is why I asked for examples of something ill conceived or poorly executed in the MCU.
And yes, Martha and Tornadocide are prime examples of the writer trying to get to a conclusion without regard to the means of getting there. Tornadocide for instance very transparently is the writer saying to themselves, "Ok I want Johnathan to die willingly in a sacrificial act, while stressing the point that Clark's powers can't be used to help in the interest of secrecy. So I'm going to use a tornado. Now why would Johnathan and Clark both be near the tornado, but only Johnathan is in danger. Oh I got it, the dog won't get out of the car so Johnathan will have to go back for him. But I don't want to kill the dog, so he'll just runaway and won't matter any more to the scene because all I needed was an excuse to get Johnathan back to the car. Oh and Clark didn't go because I needed Johnathan to die, but it would have made more sense given that he has no chance of dying in the tornado, and he wouldn't have gotten stuck and there would be no reason to think he'd reveal his powers, but Johnathan goes anyway. So now I need an excuse for the Tornado to suddenly be close enough to kill Johnathan, but still make it believable that it was far enough away for him to decide to go back for the plot convenience dog in the first place. So I'll have to have a plot convenience Johnathan gets stuck. And there we have it. Clark couldn't have gone for the dog in the first place, but now he can't come because it might reveal his powers, which might be bad even though we don't know that, and Johnathan won't even try to run away. And scene." It's a string of plot conveniences that clearly weren't very well planned. It's just the first thing whoever wrote that thought of.
How about a clear example of Lois falling away from the black hole with all of the other cars flying up past her. There is no way to make that remotely make sense, especially when Superman has to fly with all his might to keep her from being sucked in right after he catches her. It's a bad scene.
Jimmy Olson dying without even being named so there is zero emotional impact, and basically for no reason.
Martha doesn't even make sense from the character's point of view. Either of them. It's very much like Tornadocide where it stands out as a knee jerk reaction scene that seemed cool when the writer first thought of it but wasn't very well planned.
So all of these things I'm talking about the writing and planning of a scene
Lex
And what makes you think that these criticisms of yours (Tornadocide, Martha, Jimmy's death, etc.) is the proper view, and it's not simply you turning a blind eye to the well crafted nature of these scenes. ? Maybe it is you who is not open to even attempting to look at these as well done elements of the film.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 19:51:05 GMT
And what makes you think that these criticisms of yours (Tornadocide, Martha, Jimmy's death, etc.) is the proper view, and it's not simply you turning a blind eye to the well crafted nature of these scenes. ? Maybe it is you who is not open to even attempting to look at these as well done elements of the film. Yes, I knew this was the follow up question you were waiting to ask.
Did you bother to read my breakdown of the scenes, because I already answered this to save you time asking it.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 19:56:44 GMT
And what makes you think that these criticisms of yours (Tornadocide, Martha, Jimmy's death, etc.) is the proper view, and it's not simply you turning a blind eye to the well crafted nature of these scenes. ? Maybe it is you who is not open to even attempting to look at these as well done elements of the film. Yes, I knew this was the follow up question you were waiting to ask.
Did you bother to read my breakdown of the scenes, because I already answered this to save you time asking it.
Yes I read your breakdown, and basically all I see is you stating your opinion. Nothing concrete. Nothing to prove that your opinion is a valid criticism compared to what I criticized against the MCU movies.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 19:58:10 GMT
Yes I read your breakdown, and basically all I see is you stating your opinion. Nothing concrete. Nothing to prove that your opinion is a valid criticism compared to what I criticized against the MCU movies. Lois falling away from a black hole when cars are flying up past her and then needing to be saved by Superman flying with all of his might isn't concrete to you? really?
See the Thor saves Loki from a black hole scene in TDW for how to do that right.
|
|