|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Jul 25, 2017 14:57:29 GMT
You're not going to find a bigger film than Infinity War. I don't think every Marvel film is perfect and probably will even skip a few if I ever do like a marathon, but regardless, they've been building up to Infinity War and with every release of a new film, they could have easily derailed the franchise, but they've always been consistence and are well-liked, and as if you have enough characters from just the Avengers, they're also bringing in the Guardians, whose first film had no reason to really succeed because know one knew who the characters were at the time of the release. Now they're bringing them in to meet the Avengers, I mean, name a film that has more characters than this!?!? The magnitude of the epicness will be off the charts when its released and probably one of the biggest films in film history. And yeah, this is why Marvel really has the lead over DC right now. I'm glad Wonder Woman was amazing and even the biggest film of the Summer, they deserve it and I hope Justice League can live up to that, but I think some on here are just jealous of Marvel's success and how much bigger they're getting and that's why they continue to go on rants and bullshit tirades against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 25, 2017 15:32:21 GMT
You can't please everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jul 25, 2017 16:00:45 GMT
Hopefully they don't fuck up Thanos though. One of my biggest complaints regarding MCU films , is the way they waste or misuse their villains .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 16:03:13 GMT
Hopefully they don't fuck up Thanos though. One of my biggest complaints regarding MCU films , is the way they waste or misuse their villains . No, they don't. They're just not the stars of the films. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 25, 2017 16:41:14 GMT
thus spoke the weirdraptor
exactly, you heard it here first people: because being a great, effective villains absolutely and unconditionally correlates with being the star of a film!
Maybe like Bobba Fett/Jabba or Vader/Emperor Palpatine? Or Goldfinger or Hans Gruber? Or Hannibal Lector or N Bates? Or the Terminator or the Alien/Shark/Thing....
Fallacies detected: False Dilemma/Black and White, False Cause, Personal Incredulity, Ad Absurdum Generalization and good old plain stupidity.
 
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Jul 25, 2017 16:43:27 GMT
Hopefully they don't fuck up Thanos though. One of my biggest complaints regarding MCU films , is the way they waste or misuse their villains . No, they don't. They're just not the stars of the films. An some might see that as misuse. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone else. And that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. It just means that different people have different tastes or perspectives on how to tell a story. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 16:47:10 GMT
No, they don't. They're just not the stars of the films. An some might see that as misuse. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone else. And that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. It just means that different people have different tastes or perspectives on how to tell a story. So what moment of character-building shall Captain America or Ironman have to give up to make such rich characters like Stane or the Red Skull more nuanced, then? Films have limited running times, so to give the villain more, the hero has to lose something in return to keep it down to a watchable length. I rest my case. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 25, 2017 16:52:19 GMT
No, they don't. They're just not the stars of the films. An some might see that as misuse. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone else. And that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. It just means that different people have different tastes or perspectives on how to tell a story. That's typical of the arrogance of MCU fans. They have their heads stuck so far up Kevin Feige's butt that they think every superhero universe has to follow MCU's formula:
1. Have to make a bunch of solo movies before you can make a team-up movie.
2. Have to crack jokes and 1-liners every 5 minutes. Even re-use the same lame jokes if you have no new jokes (e.g. Ant-Man: "Baskin-Robbins always finds out" - a lame joke that they used twice and wasn't funny either time).
3. Have to have a weak villain so your heroes don't get their butts kicked too much.
4. Have to have Iron Man in every movie if possible.
5. Have to have 1 or more dumb post-credit scenes that have nothing to do with the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jul 25, 2017 16:54:06 GMT
An some might see that as misuse. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone else. And that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. It just means that different people have different tastes or perspectives on how to tell a story. So what moment of character-building shall Captain America or Ironman have to give up to make such rich characters like Stane or the Red Skull more nuanced, then? Films have limited running times, so to give the villain more, the hero has to lose something in return to keep it down to a watchable length. I rest my case. Well, they could've taken out the part where Captain America makes his 1st public appearance, dancing on stage with USO cheerleaders for Stan Lee and then punching out an actor dressed up like Hitler. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Jul 25, 2017 16:56:06 GMT
An some might see that as misuse. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone else. And that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. It just means that different people have different tastes or perspectives on how to tell a story. to make such rich characters like Stane or the Red Skull more nuanced, then? Films have limited running times, so to give the villain more, the hero has to lose something in return to keep it down to a watchable length. I rest my case. None. Scenes don't have to be added or removed to improve quality. They can, however, be re-written. It's incorrect to believe the hero has to lose anything to improve the villain. Thor and Loki have proven there's plenty of time to have both a compelling protagonist and antagonist even in a movie's limited run-time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 16:57:30 GMT
So what moment of character-building shall Captain America or Ironman have to give up to make such rich characters like Stane or the Red Skull more nuanced, then? Films have limited running times, so to give the villain more, the hero has to lose something in return to keep it down to a watchable length. I rest my case. Well, they could've taken out the part where Captain America makes his 1st public appearance, dancing on stage with USO cheerleaders for Stan Lee and then punching out an actor dressed up like Hitler.  Thank you for continuing to prove that you don't actually pay any attention to why the things happening on screen are happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Jul 25, 2017 16:58:11 GMT
An some might see that as misuse. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone else. And that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. It just means that different people have different tastes or perspectives on how to tell a story. So what moment of character-building shall Captain America or Ironman have to give up to make such rich characters like Stane or the Red Skull more nuanced, then? Films have limited running times, so to give the villain more, the hero has to lose something in return to keep it down to a watchable length. I rest my case. You're applying that logic as if thats the only option. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 17:02:44 GMT
So what moment of character-building shall Captain America or Ironman have to give up to make such rich characters like Stane or the Red Skull more nuanced, then? Films have limited running times, so to give the villain more, the hero has to lose something in return to keep it down to a watchable length. I rest my case. None. Scenes don't have to be added or removed to improve quality. They can, however, be re-written. It's incorrect to believe the hero has to lose anything to improve the villain. Thor and Loki have proven there's plenty of time to have both a compelling protagonist and antagonist even in a movie's limited run-time. Loki as a character has more meat than most of the villains they've been using. The Red Skull is intended to be a pantomime villain, a caricature of the Nazi party. Obadiah Stane is basically Baddy McBad-Bad by design as well. These are action film villains and people need to stop acting like the MCU is butchering all-time great characters from literature. They're not. I don't see anyone complaining about Hans Gruber being just a shallow character with no tragic backstory or meaningful goals. Why is it okay for Hans Gruber to just be a glorified bank robber who is only ever on-screen when he needs to be, but its not okay for the MCU villains to play second fiddle to the heroes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 17:03:57 GMT
So what moment of character-building shall Captain America or Ironman have to give up to make such rich characters like Stane or the Red Skull more nuanced, then? Films have limited running times, so to give the villain more, the hero has to lose something in return to keep it down to a watchable length. I rest my case. You're applying that logic as if thats the only option. It is the only option. These are not sympathetic villains who we spend hours on watching their tragic backstories by design. Marvel Studios is far, far more interested in exploring what makes their heroes tick. Learn to live with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Jul 25, 2017 17:26:18 GMT
You're applying that logic as if thats the only option. It is the only option. These are not sympathetic villains who we spend hours on watching their tragic backstories by design. Marvel Studios is far, far more interested in exploring what makes their heroes tick. Learn to live with it. Where is your imagination? |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 25, 2017 17:39:48 GMT
An some might see that as misuse. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it should work for everyone else. And that doesn't mean either side is right or wrong. It just means that different people have different tastes or perspectives on how to tell a story. That's typical of the arrogance of MCU fans. They have their heads stuck so far up Kevin Feige's butt that they think every superhero universe has to follow MCU's formula:
I have no idea what Kevin Feige looks like let alone his butt. I know what Harley Quinn's butt looks like though...it got more screentime than some of the Suicide Squad..way to go pro-feminist DC(off on a tangent a bit there but might as well speak your language) Why or how on Earth is that a complaint? Not all studios think "hey, let's make something dark and humourless, it worked for Nolan" and then generally fudge it up Ares! Lex Luthor! Enchantress! Aaah yes. The little known comic Character that became a success. DC still can't make a film without 4 of the 5 most famous comic book charaters EVER. And of the 5 (I'm including JLA) how many has Batman appeared in? 3 out of 5. How many non-Iron Man or Avengers films has Iron Man appeared in? 1 (excluding a post credit sequence). Do you expect Iron Man NOT to appear in an Avengers or Iron Man film? (Civil War doesn't count because you yourself said that it is an Avengers film...painted yourself into a corner on that one) And that is a criticism how? If DC did it first you'd claim it was a great idea. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 17:41:30 GMT
It is the only option. These are not sympathetic villains who we spend hours on watching their tragic backstories by design. Marvel Studios is far, far more interested in exploring what makes their heroes tick. Learn to live with it. Where is your imagination? Where's yours'? Tim Burton and Bryan Singer have you trained to believe that the villain should get just as much or more focus than the hero when that's never been the case in most of action-based cinema outside of comic book movies. Do most of James Bond's villains get a lot of personal moments and character development? No. Do John McClane's? No. Do Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh's? No. Hell, even the villains for nine hour epics like Lord of the Rings had minimal screentime and no one complained about that. Hell, Darth Vader never underwent a single moment of real character development outside of just looking cool in that getup. And the Emperor is as pantomime as it comes. I rest my case. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Jul 25, 2017 18:22:28 GMT
Where is your imagination? Where's yours'? Tim Burton and Bryan Singer have you trained to believe that the villain should get just as much or more focus than the hero when that's never been the case in most of action-based cinema outside of comic book movies. Do most of James Bond's villains get a lot of personal moments and character development? No. Do John McClane's? No. Do Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh's? No. Hell, even the villains for nine hour epics like Lord of the Rings had minimal screentime and no one complained about that. Hell, Darth Vader never underwent a single moment of real character development outside of just looking cool in that getup. And the Emperor is as pantomime as it comes. I rest my case. You're missing the point. I like what marvel have done so far with most of their villains in the movies. But what works for you or me, does not work for everyone. The critisims are valid because it can always be different and work in different ways. Those are fine examples but again what works for some, others would prefer something else. What do you not get about that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 18:33:56 GMT
Where's yours'? Tim Burton and Bryan Singer have you trained to believe that the villain should get just as much or more focus than the hero when that's never been the case in most of action-based cinema outside of comic book movies. Do most of James Bond's villains get a lot of personal moments and character development? No. Do John McClane's? No. Do Martin Riggs and Roger Murtaugh's? No. Hell, even the villains for nine hour epics like Lord of the Rings had minimal screentime and no one complained about that. Hell, Darth Vader never underwent a single moment of real character development outside of just looking cool in that getup. And the Emperor is as pantomime as it comes. I rest my case. You're missing the point. I like what marvel have done so far with most of their villains in the movies. But what works for you or me, does not work for everyone. The critisims are valid because it can always be different and work in different ways. Those are fine examples but again what works for some, others would prefer something else. What do you not get about that? No, I get it and its dumb. You can't say sympathetic without saying "pathetic." |
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Jul 25, 2017 18:35:17 GMT
You're missing the point. I like what marvel have done so far with most of their villains in the movies. But what works for you or me, does not work for everyone. The critisims are valid because it can always be different and work in different ways. Those are fine examples but again what works for some, others would prefer something else. What do you not get about that? No, I get it and its dumb. You can't say sympathetic without saying "pathetic." You can't say agree to disagree. |
|
