|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 5, 2018 6:03:46 GMT
The main problem for the HP movies for me is the acting of the 3 main leads. These were 3 children with very limited acting skill and experience and it showed. Not their fault, I think they did a splendid job despite their lack of training. Still, it made for very weak leads for a big budget movie. I have never seen HP, but, I have to strongly agree, I hate films that rely on child actors, they are always horrible (actors)
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 5, 2018 6:39:24 GMT
I watched the original Harry Potter earlier and the acting on the kids is a bit awkward but they do get better as they get older.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 5, 2018 6:54:33 GMT
Is watched the original Harry Potter earlier and the acting on the kids is a bit awkward but they do get better as they get older. They do get better but never really get that good. At least imo. I mean, even till today Emma Watson is still pretty wooden. The kids in stranger things completely blow their acting out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 5, 2018 10:09:57 GMT
oh come on, Twilight may not have the raccoon turds but it got the sensitive nipples just like MCU. Let's not forget you used a Bela Swan avatar on ImDb to the bitter end, just saying. So be honest: are you more team vampire or team werewolf? You got a weird and creepy obsession with that gif. so basically you are Team Turd. Which one, Team Squishy or Team Huge?
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 5, 2018 11:49:50 GMT
Alright fellas be honest with me. How many of you watched the entire Twilight series? And don't give me that "My girlfriend made me" nonsense. I've read and seen them all and own all of the movies on DVD. ... what? I've been to the opening day for all films and I bought them all on Blue-Ray. Never read the books, but I did have a crush on the actor that played Jacob.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 5, 2018 13:48:17 GMT
The main problem for the HP movies for me is the acting of the 3 main leads. These were 3 children with very limited acting skill and experience and it showed. Not their fault, I think they did a splendid job despite their lack of training. Still, it made for very weak leads for a big budget movie. I have never seen HP, but, I have to strongly agree, I hate films that rely on child actors, they are always horrible (actors) I've seen all of them in the theater because my wife is a huge HP fan, and I couldn't tell you a single thing about the plot in any of them. Something something magic, featuring a bunch of goofy characters with idiotic names. They're boring and the main characters are always unlikeable twits.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Nov 5, 2018 16:02:26 GMT
I have never seen HP, but, I have to strongly agree, I hate films that rely on child actors, they are always horrible (actors) I've seen all of them in the theater because my wife is a huge HP fan, and I couldn't tell you a single thing about the plot in any of them. Something something magic, featuring a bunch of goofy characters with idiotic names. They're boring and the main characters are always unlikeable twits. was the deal with mcu fans always on reverse psychology? HP was not goffy, MCU is. HP was taken very seriously. the names arte not idiotic, they were of JK Rowling fantastic imagination. poor mcu fans. HP gets more respect than mcu movies. mcu is more twilight. mcu ruined comic movies as twilight ruined vampires. deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 5, 2018 16:10:46 GMT
I've seen all of them in the theater because my wife is a huge HP fan, and I couldn't tell you a single thing about the plot in any of them. Something something magic, featuring a bunch of goofy characters with idiotic names. They're boring and the main characters are always unlikeable twits. was the deal with mcu fans always on reverse psychology? HP was not goffy, MCU is. HP was taken very seriously. the names arte not idiotic, they were of JK Rowling fantastic imagination. poor mcu fans. HP gets more respect than mcu movies. mcu is more twilight. mcu ruined comic movies as twilight ruined vampires. deal with it. Oh, come on. Potter’s goofy, the MCU’s goofy, DC’s goofy, Star Wars is goofy—of course they are. That’s why we like them. Potter characters have names like Weasley, Hermione, Dumbledore. (Dumbledore! Can you get a sillier name?) Marvel has a big green giant whose clothes stretch, a goofball who shoots lightning out of his magic hammer, and a man in a robot suit whose insides never get smashed up when he gets hurtled through the air. DC has a boy scout who wears tights and flies and a loony who gets revenge for his parents’ deaths by dressing as a giant bat. Star Wars has names like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Skywalker, and Wookies and Ewoks, and is a huge fantasy that happens to be set in space. And you know what? That’s fine. They’re all fun (some, obviously, more than others, but that’s what we debate here). But you can’t say that your pet series is less goofy than any others.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 5, 2018 16:19:41 GMT
was the deal with mcu fans always on reverse psychology? HP was not goffy, MCU is. HP was taken very seriously. the names arte not idiotic, they were of JK Rowling fantastic imagination. poor mcu fans. HP gets more respect than mcu movies. mcu is more twilight. mcu ruined comic movies as twilight ruined vampires. deal with it. Oh, come on. Potter’s goofy, the MCU’s goofy, DC’s goofy, Star Wars is goofy—of course they are. That’s why we like them. Potter characters have names like Weasley, Hermione, Dumbledore. (Dumbledore! Can you get a sillier name?) Marvel has a big green giant whose clothes stretch, a goofball who shoots lightning out of his magic hammer, and a man in a robot suit whose inside never get smashed up when he gets hurtled through the air. DC has a boy scout who wears tights and flies and a loony who gets revenge for his parents’ deaths by dressing as a giant bat. Star Wars has names like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Skywalker, and Wookies and Ewoks, and is a huge fantasy that happens to be set in space. And you know what? That’s fine. They’re all fun (some, obviously, more than others, but that’s what we debate here). But you can’t say that your pet series is less goofy than any others. Don't forget the Fox X-men. They're just as goofy as the rest of them.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 5, 2018 16:23:55 GMT
Don't forget the Fox X-men. They're just as goofy as the rest of them. Goofier, I think. I couldn’t sit through the whole of X2 because the acting (McKellen, Stewart, and Cox notwithstanding) was so bad—and, when the acting and directing are that bad, it exposes the goofiness even more. Not, as I wrote above, that goofiness is a bad thing, but with the one X-Men movie I’ve seen (or, at least, seen the first hour of) the whole enterprise just becomes ridiculous. I tried X2 because I’d read here it was the best of the series. I should hope for the series’ sake it’s not the best of the series.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 5, 2018 16:27:31 GMT
Don't forget the Fox X-men. They're just as goofy as the rest of them. Goofier, I think. I couldn’t sit through the whole of X2 because the acting (McKellen, Stewart, and Cox notwithstanding) was so bad—and, when the acting and directing are that bad, it exposes the goofiness even more. Not, as I wrote above, that goofiness is a bad thing, but with the one X-Men movie I’ve seen (or, at least, seen the first hour of) the whole enterprise just becomes ridiculous. I tried X2 because I’d read here it was the best of the series. I should hope for the series’ sake it’s not the best of the series. you should start with Logan, it's R rated and a masterpiece artistically blowing away any MCU, Potter or Twilight movie. This should change your mind.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 5, 2018 17:00:19 GMT
LOL HP was kiddie trash that tried to be both SW and LOTR and in the end it's just a dumb kid movie series. Voldermont was a joke as were all of the laughable villains in this tripe. They were absolutely no stakes in these movies because these movies were made for money (hence the unnecessary spliting the last movie into two just for a Box office return from kids and their parents). ouch,looks like MCU fans cant handle HP superiority to mcu kiddie trash movies. Its so ironic that mcu is the series actually called kiddie trash.
speaking of star wars, doesnt last jedi and rogue one suck because it was like an MCU movie? also didnt the earlier HP films come out around the same time as LOTR and more than held its own?
FACTS WINS again.
poor mcu fans, they should watch half blood prince and learn what a great cinematography is to the cartoonish looking cgi mcu movies.
good days when franchises were art.
You're right, facts do win, Nancy. The fact is, you're a dumbass and an attention-whore on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 5, 2018 17:27:29 GMT
you should start with Logan, it's R rated and a masterpiece artistically blowing away any MCU, Potter or Twilight movie. This should change your mind. That’s my uncle’s my favorite superhero movie; he knows all of these better than I do, as he watches nearly all the ones that come out. (He had a really stressful job before he retired, and ironically watching these blow ‘er up movies was his way to calm down.) I’ll probably be able to get it from him at some point, but even if it’s really good and an artistic masterpiece, I doubt it’ll change my mind that all of these franchises have a degree of inherent silliness to them. Now, that doesn’t mean they’re bad; to the contrary. I love goofy stuff: I’m a huge fan of the Marx Bros. and Laurel and Hardy, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 5, 2018 17:28:36 GMT
harry potter movies are superior. the thing with harry potter is it got better from a film making stand point. also for what was suppose to be a children's book, the maturity, themes, stakes, darkness and depth of the movies puts mcu to big shame. the ironic is rich, harry potter got more mature as the movies went on, i remember we potter fans used to say every opening title got darker which was a sign that the series was growing up. mcu has gotten more childish and superficially bright and light as each movie have gone on. also from a technical film making stand point. prisoner of askaban, half blood prince, deathly hallows 1 and 2 are the best potter films LOL HP was kiddie trash that tried to be both SW and LOTR and in the end it's just a dumb kid movie series. Voldermont was a joke as were all of the laughable villains in this tripe. They were absolutely no stakes in these movies because these movies were made for money (hence the unnecessary spliting the last movie into two just for a Box office return from kids and their parents). Bull. Fucking. Shit. Voldemort is a way better villain than 99% of the shit we've gotten from comic book movies. He was way more threatening than any of this CGI bullshit we've gotten in recently years. From cartoon robots (Ultron, Sentinels), Alien Invaders (Thanos, Steppenwolf, Zod), God's (Loki, Hela, Ares, Enchantress), costume villains (Magneto, Red Skull, Doctor Poison), CGI porn (Abomination, Doomsday). Voldemort absolutely wiped the floor of them, with the only exception being The Joker (Heath Ledger) As for the "It's made for the money!!!111" No shit Sherlock. Big budget films normally produced by studios in hope for a big profitable return. Hopefully your consistent enough to be bashing Marvel for doing the same thing with Avengers 3 and 4.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 5, 2018 17:37:04 GMT
you should start with Logan, it's R rated and a masterpiece artistically blowing away any MCU, Potter or Twilight movie. This should change your mind. That’s my uncle’s my favorite superhero movie; he knows all of these better than I do, as he watches nearly all the ones that come out. (He had a really stressful job before he retired, and ironically watching these blow ‘er up movies was his way to calm down.) I’ll probably be able to get it from him at some point, but even if it’s really good and an artistic masterpiece, I doubt it’ll change my mind that all of these franchises have a degree of inherent silliness to them. Now, that doesn’t mean they’re bad; to the contrary. I love goofy stuff: I’m a huge fan of the Marx Bros. and Laurel and Hardy, after all. watch Logan - and at least give the very first X-Men a chance, it's old (200o) yet wonderfully allegorical: about minority paranoia and has good political world building. It's a lot more intelligent than 98% of CBMs and has 4 amazing key performances. The premise is silly yes, but come on: beefcake in tights movies.
Logan is just incredible - but may be too dark, brutal and nihilistic for your tastes. Anyway must-see like Wonder Woman, Nolan or Watchmen regardless whether you hate it or love it. Forget all the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 5, 2018 17:38:54 GMT
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Voldemort is a way better villain than 99% of the shit we've gotten from comic book movies. He was way more threatening than any of this CGI bullshit we've gotten in recently years. From cartoon robots (Ultron, Sentinels), Alien Invaders (Thanos, Steppenwolf, Zod), God's (Loki, Hela, Ares, Enchantress), costume villains (Magneto, Red Skull, Doctor Poison), CGI porn (Abomination, Doomsday). Voldemort absolutely wiped the floor of them, with the only exception being The Joker (Heath Ledger) As for the "It's made for the money!!!111" No shit Sherlock. Big budget films normally produced by studios in hope for a big profitable return. Hopefully your consistent enough to be bashing Marvel for doing the same thing with Avengers 3 and 4. Yeah, I think old Voldemort was pretty much the best villain of all the ones you listed—Ledger’s Joker, though amazing, was primarily a different kettle of fish. I think I liked Voldemort the best in the first three books/movies, before he’s reincarnated in GoF: he’s the dark lord, like Sauron and Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader—a mostly off-screen presence who somehow manages to exert his influence on all the events that occur. Voldemort is not exceptionally well-characterized (though better than many MCU/DCEU villains), but he’s more threatening, as you say—off-screen and mysterious, pulling the strings in the dark. I love the cliché that you can’t say his name; as mocked as it was and can be, it invests him with power, as Dumbledore says somewhere. Mythology’s right to say that names are powerful things. My favorite villain of all of them is probably Gene Hackman’s Luthor, villainous and hilarious, and I love the Burton Batman villains and the Hedger Joker. Of the modern ones, my favorite was probably Robert Redford’s spy chief, who was in type if not in tone like the Hackman Luthor—a human being, no superpowers, but one with flint and strength and true wickedness.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 5, 2018 17:47:49 GMT
watch Logan - and at least give the very first X-Men a chance, it's old (200o) yet wonderfully allegorical: about minority paranoia and has good political world building. It's a lot more intelligent than 98% of CBMs and has 4 amazing key performances. The premise is silly yes, but come on: beefcake in tights movies.
Logan is just incredible - but may be too dark, brutal and nihilistic for your tastes. Anyway must-see like Wonder Woman, Nolan or Watchmen regardless whether you hate it or love it. Forget all the rest.
“Beefcake in tights movies”—well, yeah, that’s what I mean. That’s what these all are, more or less. At least the superhero ones. I’ve seen and liked Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Iron Man 3, Captain America: The First Avenger, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, the Nolan Batman trilogy, Superman ’78 (of course—the best of the lot, in my opinion), the Burton Batman duology, Batman v Superman, Wonder Woman, and Spider-Man: Homecoming. I’ve seen and didn’t like the Superman sequels, the Schumacher Batman sequels, X2, Man of Steel, all the Thor movies, The Avengers, The Amazing Spider-Man, and Justice League. So, franchise-wise, I’m an equal-opportunity offender. I’ll take a look at Logan, X-Men, and Watchmen one of these days. I do mean to give them all a chance; I’m fairly eclectic in my tastes.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 5, 2018 18:28:21 GMT
was the deal with mcu fans always on reverse psychology? HP was not goffy, MCU is. HP was taken very seriously. the names arte not idiotic, they were of JK Rowling fantastic imagination. poor mcu fans. HP gets more respect than mcu movies. mcu is more twilight. mcu ruined comic movies as twilight ruined vampires. deal with it. Oh, come on. Potter’s goofy, the MCU’s goofy, DC’s goofy, Star Wars is goofy—of course they are. That’s why we like them. Potter characters have names like Weasley, Hermione, Dumbledore. (Dumbledore! Can you get a sillier name?) Marvel has a big green giant whose clothes stretch, a goofball who shoots lightning out of his magic hammer, and a man in a robot suit whose insides never get smashed up when he gets hurtled through the air. DC has a boy scout who wears tights and flies and a loony who gets revenge for his parents’ deaths by dressing as a giant bat. Star Wars has names like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Skywalker, and Wookies and Ewoks, and is a huge fantasy that happens to be set in space. And you know what? That’s fine. They’re all fun (some, obviously, more than others, but that’s what we debate here). But you can’t say that your pet series is less goofy than any others. Only Harry Potter has a character named Mad-Eye Moody who literally has one of those googly eye things strapped to his head. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen on screen, only a spoof of any of those other franchises would do something like that. All sci-fi and fantasy is goofy to a certain extent, but nothing approaches the stuff in Harry Potter.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 5, 2018 18:34:10 GMT
Oh, it’s a silly name, yeah, Rey Kahuka, but I like the character. The way Brendan Gleeson played him in the movie, basically as Long John Silver, was such a great choice. And that twist! An acquaintance of mine once put The Goblet of Fire on his list of greatest mysteries of all time (it’s a funny list, yeah—he also had The Simpsons’ “Who Shot Mr. Burns?” on there). I don’t know if I’d go that far, but Rowling’s cluing is spectacular; it’s no surprise she turned to writing murder-mysteries after Harry.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Nov 5, 2018 18:37:51 GMT
Oh, it’s a silly name, yeah, Rey Kahuka , but I like the character. The way Brendan Gleeson played him in the movie, basically as Long John Silver, was such a great choice. And that twist! An acquaintance of mine once put The Goblet of Fire on his list of greatest mysteries of all time (it’s a funny list, yeah—he also had The Simpsons’ “Who Shot Mr. Burns?” on there). I don’t know if I’d go that far, but Rowling’s cluing is spectacular; it’s no surprise she turned to writing murder-mysteries after Harry. I'll take your word for it. He could be alive, dead, the greatest hero or the criminal mastermind. I only remember how stupid he looked, I have no recollection whatsoever of the story.
|
|