|
Post by harpospoke on Sept 27, 2017 18:29:27 GMT
All of them are lame, but if you're talking about "lamest", it's either Civil War or SMH.
Civil War
Zemo: "The Avengers killed my family. But even though I know all of their identities, I'm not going to do the logical thing and target their families ad loved ones. Instead, I'm going to come up with the most convoluted plot in CBM history where I find the only copy of a videotape from 25 years ago of Bucky killing the Starks on a random road in the middle of nowhere (where a random camera just happen to be in the right position and right angle to record the killings) but instead of uploading the video to the Internet for everyone to see that Bucky is a murderer, I'm going to wait for Bucky, Captain America, and Iron Man to all show up at a remote base in Siberia at the same time (which I know will happen because I read that in the script) so they can all watch the video together."
Ant-Man: "I said in my movie that I want to be a superhero so my daughter will be proud of her ex-con dad. So I'm going to aid and abet a double-murderer to escape from the authorities because that'll really make my daughter proud of her ex-con dad."
Hawkeye: "I'm going to abandon the girlfriend and little kids at home and go halfway around the world to aid and abet a double-murderer to escape from the authorities because helping a double-murderer escape takes priority over family."
Iron Man: "I know that Bucky and Cap are going to show up a the airport to hijack the quinjet to make their escape. So being the strategic genius that I am, I'm going to set up an escape-proof trap for them. And my plan is to kidnap a 15-year-old high school kid from New York and transport him out of the country under false pretenses lying to his legal guardian and then call the kid to come down from the roof. Yep, that's my escape-proof plan and it's going to work because I'm a strategic genius."
SMH
A ferry boat splits in half and the writers actually thought that just pushing together the 2 split halves of the boat can stop the boat from sinking.
Peter's best friend brings a bomb into the Washington Monument and blows up the elevator, but DHS, FBI, and DC Police don't even detain and question him. You can do that to any movie. All you need is the desire to look for flaws and you can list countless "problems" in every movie ever made. Suddenly a character who tells jokes is a problem. But if you like the movie...like say...Star Wars...then Han Solo never taking anything serious isn't an issue at all. The reason for the "plot holes" is that real life is "believable". Well movies aren't real life. Real life is boring so in order to make a story compelling you have to add things that wouldn't happen in real life. If you think DC movies don't do it, it's just because you don't want to look for things to criticize. Why wouldn't Superman just talk with Batman instead of shoving him all over the place in BvS? Why would Superman forget how to use his super powers and lose a fight to Batman? (he even fell for the kryptonite gas... TWICE) Why would Batman know nothing about Superman after being obsessed with him for 18 months? Isn't Batman supposed to be the world's greatest detective? So how does he not know who Superman or his mother are? How does Batman not know that Superman is a good guy? Does Batman really decide to kill someone based on assumptions? ...apparently according to BvS. Luthor certainly figured out who Superman is so he must be a better detective than Batman. (Luthor also found kryptonite for Batman) And Luthor is afraid of gods...but then creates one? Why didn't all the people explode during the microwave attack in Batman Begins? Speaking of Batman movies...the Dark Knight is filled with stuff that makes no sense. Why did Gordon and the Mayor stand in front of the Joker's cell in The Dark Knight and complain they couldn't figure out who he was? ....The Joker was sitting there in full makeup. Ever think to.... wash his face? And who would work for the Joker? The guy kills his henchmen left and right. How is he able to plant bombs anywhere he wants without anyone noticing? 100 barrels of explosives on two ferries and no one noticed? A whole hospital wired to explode and no one noticed? A bomb inside a jail inmate?? (that of course goes off at the perfect time so the Joker doesn't get hurt) Why would the mobsters just let the Joker walk away from that meeting? They couldn't just have someone follow him until he's at a safe distance with his bombs (more of those) and then kill him? Pretty dumb mob. ...But then everyone in TDK is dumb so the Joker can look "smart". Why wouldn't they just fly the eagles and drop the ring and save all that trouble in Lord of the Rings? No one was in the room when Kane said "Rosebud" in Citizen Kane...so why would the rest of the movie happen? How does the T-1000 travel through time in T-2? So yeah...pick a movie and you can tear it apart if you want to. We don't enjoy movies because they "make so much sense". It's an escape from reality...not a documentary.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Sept 27, 2017 18:32:09 GMT
Oh...my vote is for The Incredible Hulk. Totally mishandling of the Hulk character as usual. It's a Bruce Banner movie and Banner is one of the most boring characters in comics.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 27, 2017 18:45:20 GMT
"The lamest"? I suppose we mean "the worst"? (I'm not being smart-alecky, and sorry if it comes off that way: I just don't know what "lame" is supposed to mean in this context.)
OK, I've seen these:
Spider-Man (2002)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Fantastic Four (2005)
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Iron Man (2008)
Iron-Man 2 (2010)
Captain America (2011)
Thor (2011)
The Avengers (2012)
The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)
Iron Man 3 (2013)
Of these, there were only maybe three that I greatly liked--Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man--and two that I "just" liked--Iron-Man 3 and Captain America; the rest I thought quite weak, in varying degrees of weakness.
My three least favorites, though, would have to be The Avengers, a bombastic and overwrought show of special effects and little characterization or emotion; Thor, which I found mainly turgid; and The Amazing Spider-Man, which struck me as particularly badly-filmed for a summer blockbuster, but then I was spoiled by the "original" (original? It's only a few years ago!) Spider-Man movies, which were grand little movies for summer blockbusters.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 27, 2017 18:55:27 GMT
"The lamest"?.... Of these, there only maybe three that I greatly liked-- Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man--and two that I "just" liked-- Iron-Man 3 and Captain America; the rest I thought quite weak, in varying degrees of weakness. My three least favorites, though, would have to be The Avengers, a bombastic and overwrought show of special effects and little characterization or emotion; Thor, which i found mainly turgid; and The Amazing Spider-Man, which struck me as particularly badly-filmed for a summer blockbuster, but then I was spoiled by the "original" (original? It's only a few years ago!) Spider-Man movies, which were grand little movies for summer blockbusters. well put, but better keep that layman's rapier unsheathed, Spiderboy 1/2 are not even MCU, the fanboys will be after you like rabid dogs.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 27, 2017 19:01:46 GMT
"The lamest"?.... Of these, there only maybe three that I greatly liked-- Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, and Iron Man--and two that I "just" liked-- Iron-Man 3 and Captain America; the rest I thought quite weak, in varying degrees of weakness. My three least favorites, though, would have to be The Avengers, a bombastic and overwrought show of special effects and little characterization or emotion; Thor, which i found mainly turgid; and The Amazing Spider-Man, which struck me as particularly badly-filmed for a summer blockbuster, but then I was spoiled by the "original" (original? It's only a few years ago!) Spider-Man movies, which were grand little movies for summer blockbusters. well put, but better keep that layman's rapier unsheathed, Spiderboy 1/2 are not even MCU, the fanboys will be after you like rabid dogs. Well, Shaw was right when he said every profession (or, perhaps, "fandom") is a conspiracy against the laity. Thank you for the compliment. I've had people try to explain to me what "counts" and what doesn't, and I apologize for not understanding even still. They're all comic-book movies based on the same company's product, no? I understand there's that "shared universe" (a concept I don't like, as I've written elsewhere recently), but I don't understand why some "count," despite not showing up with some other character (yet?), and some don't. But I am a layman in this regard, as you say, who tries to give an honest opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 27, 2017 19:15:47 GMT
well put, but better keep that layman's rapier unsheathed, Spiderboy 1/2 are not even MCU, the fanboys will be after you like rabid dogs. They're all comic-book movies based on the same company's product, no? I understand there's that "shared universe" (a concept I don't like, as I've written elsewhere recently), but I don't understand why some "count," despite not showing up with some other character (yet?), and some don't. But I am a layman in this regard, as you say, who tries to give an honest opinion. yeah, in the end it's about the doctrinal differences concerning the proper way to crack eggs. When the sun of culture hangs low dwarfs and their toys cast long shadows. You might consider posting the dislike of shared universes opinion of yours (which I a share) as OP thread, might yield interesting results and reactions.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Sept 27, 2017 19:20:54 GMT
Tristan's JournalSure, I'd be happy to. Where do you think would be the best place to post it (as it doesn't fit into any particular "universe")?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 27, 2017 19:28:52 GMT
Sure, I'd be happy to. Where do you think would be the best place to post it (as it doesn't fit into any particular "universe")? well, here in the MCU board I'd say, but it applies to the DCEU as well, also the X-Men (rudimentarily) were the first to introduce it to CMBs. But this board here has the highest traffic, so...
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 28, 2017 1:19:58 GMT
well put, but better keep that layman's rapier unsheathed, Spiderboy 1/2 are not even MCU, the fanboys will be after you like rabid dogs. I've had people try to explain to me what "counts" and what doesn't, and I apologize for not understanding even still. They're all comic-book movies based on the same company's product, no? I understand there's that "shared universe" No need to apologize. It's just common sense that all comic-book movies based on the same company's product should be part of the same "shared cinematic universe" and not spread out among 3 different "cinematic universes". I've said many times before (and have been viciously attacked by MCU fans for saying this) that MCU doesn't even have all of the comic-book movies based on Marvel's own product (Marvel comics), then it's not really a "shared cinematic universe". At best, it's only a sub-universe since their characters are just a subset of Marvel's products (Marvel comics).
It's like a coin collection or a stamp collection of the 50 states or of all the US Presidents. If your collection is missing 2 states or 2 Presidents, then you're collection is incomplete and isn't worth as much as a collection that contains all 50 states or all US Presidents.
That's why MCU fans want DECU and Fantastic Four and X-Men movies to fail. Because DCEU is an true "shared cinematic universe" and because the Fantastic Four and the X-Men are preventing MCU from having a true "shared cinematic universe".
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Sept 28, 2017 3:11:34 GMT
Thor is actually pretty deep man. How often do you get a main antagonist who isn't some evil villain but is desperate for a place he feels at home and is genuinely trying to win over his father's approval. If you thought that was lame, I have to say, you have kinda been missing the point. That is an absolutely beautiful film. Man of Steel did it better. It really didn't. The overall arc of having Loki forced to confront his father again and seeing that he had ultimate lost his approval instead of gaining it and the level of acting in that scene is sublime. And you can reflect that throughout the film, such as when Loki visits Thor in custody. He isn't taunting his brother, but rather letting him go. Nothing about Man of Steel does it better than that, it just doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 28, 2017 8:33:05 GMT
I've had people try to explain to me what "counts" and what doesn't, and I apologize for not understanding even still. They're all comic-book movies based on the same company's product, no? I understand there's that "shared universe" No need to apologize. It's just common sense that all comic-book movies based on the same company's product should be part of the same "shared cinematic universe" and not spread out among 3 different "cinematic universes". I've said many times before (and have been viciously attacked by MCU fans for saying this) that MCU doesn't even have all of the comic-book movies based on Marvel's own product (Marvel comics), then it's not really a "shared cinematic universe". At best, it's only a sub-universe since their characters are just a subset of Marvel's products (Marvel comics).
It's like a coin collection or a stamp collection of the 50 states or of all the US Presidents. If your collection is missing 2 states or 2 Presidents, then you're collection is incomplete and isn't worth as much as a collection that contains all 50 states or all US Presidents.
That's why MCU fans want DECU and Fantastic Four and X-Men movies to fail. Because DCEU is an true "shared cinematic universe" and because the Fantastic Four and the X-Men are preventing MCU from having a true "shared cinematic universe".
If the DCEU was a true Shared Universe, they wouldn't have taken the lazy way out by starting off with the predictable ones like Batman and Superman.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 28, 2017 8:53:12 GMT
No need to apologize. It's just common sense that all comic-book movies based on the same company's product should be part of the same "shared cinematic universe" and not spread out among 3 different "cinematic universes". I've said many times before (and have been viciously attacked by MCU fans for saying this) that MCU doesn't even have all of the comic-book movies based on Marvel's own product (Marvel comics), then it's not really a "shared cinematic universe". At best, it's only a sub-universe since their characters are just a subset of Marvel's products (Marvel comics).
It's like a coin collection or a stamp collection of the 50 states or of all the US Presidents. If your collection is missing 2 states or 2 Presidents, then you're collection is incomplete and isn't worth as much as a collection that contains all 50 states or all US Presidents.
That's why MCU fans want DECU and Fantastic Four and X-Men movies to fail. Because DCEU is an true "shared cinematic universe" and because the Fantastic Four and the X-Men are preventing MCU from having a true "shared cinematic universe".
If the DCEU was a true Shared Universe, they wouldn't have taken the lazy way out by starting off with the predictable ones like Batman and Superman. It isn't lazy to start off with your biggest hitters. It's smart strategy.
MCU fans complain about it only because MCU doesn't have any big hitters like Superman and Batman. It would be like fans of other teams complaining about the 1990s Bulls because Michael Jordan takes the most shots on the team and whenever a game comes down to the last shot, Michael Jordan is usually the 1 who takes that last shot for the Bulls.
"Waah! Waah! Waah! Why is Jordan always taking that last shot for the Bulls? Why doesn't someone else take that last shot for the Bulls? Waah! Waah! Waah!"
Because when you have the greatest player in the world on your team, it's smart strategy to have him take the last shot when the game's on the line. And when you have Superman and Batman, it's smart strategy to start your shared cinematic universe with them. It's not DC's fault that MCU is so lame that MCU doesn't have any big hitters like Superman and Batman.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 28, 2017 9:29:26 GMT
If the DCEU was a true Shared Universe, they wouldn't have taken the lazy way out by starting off with the predictable ones like Batman and Superman. It isn't lazy to start off with your biggest hitters. It's smart strategy. It is lazy. Starting off with unexpected characters shows your confidence in your brand and allows more wiggle room for setting up your universe as opposed to inviting immediate comparisons to prior movie versions of already done characters. MCU fans complain because DC's laziness brings down CBMs as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Sept 28, 2017 10:34:54 GMT
It isn't lazy to start off with your biggest hitters. It's smart strategy. It is lazy. Starting off with unexpected characters shows your confidence in your brand and allows more wiggle room for setting up your universe as opposed to inviting immediate comparisons to prior movie versions of already done characters. MCU fans complain because DC's laziness brings down CBMs as a whole. What strategy? it's not like Marvel had any big hitters when they started the MCU. Spiderman, F4 and X-Men would have been the big-hitters for Marvel
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Sept 28, 2017 11:03:18 GMT
It is lazy. Starting off with unexpected characters shows your confidence in your brand and allows more wiggle room for setting up your universe as opposed to inviting immediate comparisons to prior movie versions of already done characters. MCU fans complain because DC's laziness brings down CBMs as a whole. What strategy? it's not like Marvel had any big hitters when they started the MCU. Spiderman, F4 and X-Men would have been the big-hitters for Marvel Exactly, it meant that instead of taking the lazy way out they had to put effort into building up their characters and making them more A-List (though in the comics, Iron Man and Cap are A-Listers). Now we have Guardians of the Galaxy beating out Superman and Batman at the Movies.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Sept 28, 2017 11:31:59 GMT
What strategy? it's not like Marvel had any big hitters when they started the MCU. Spiderman, F4 and X-Men would have been the big-hitters for Marvel Exactly, it meant that instead of taking the lazy way out they had to put effort into building up their characters and making them more A-List (though in the comics, Iron Man and Cap are A-Listers). Now we have Guardians of the Galaxy beating out Superman and Batman at the Movies. yes, but you don't know what would have happened if they had the rights to Spiderman or X-men. Who's to say if the first MCU movie wouldn't have been Spiderman or X-men?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 28, 2017 16:02:28 GMT
It is lazy. Starting off with unexpected characters shows your confidence in your brand and allows more wiggle room for setting up your universe as opposed to inviting immediate comparisons to prior movie versions of already done characters. MCU fans complain because DC's laziness brings down CBMs as a whole. it's not like Marvel had any big hitters when they started the MCU. Spiderman, F4 and X-Men would have been the big-hitters for Marvel Yes, and it's not DC's fault that Marvel signed away their biggest hitters and didn't have any big hitters like Superman or Batman.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Sept 28, 2017 16:08:11 GMT
Exactly, it meant that instead of taking the lazy way out they had to put effort into building up their characters and making them more A-List (though in the comics, Iron Man and Cap are A-Listers). Now we have Guardians of the Galaxy beating out Superman and Batman at the Movies. yes, but you don't know what would have happened if they had the rights to Spiderman or X-men. Who's to say if the first MCU movie wouldn't have been Spiderman or X-men? Yes, that's my point which formersamhmd and all the whiny MCU fans don't seem to comprehend. When you have Michael Jordan on your team, obviously you give him the last shot when the game's on the line. When you have Superman and Batman on your roster, you start with them because they're the biggest hitters in American comics history.
If MCU had Spider-Man, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four on their roster, they would've started with them rather than shitty characters like Iron Man and Hulk. But MCU didn't have those on their roster so they had no choice but to use shitty characters like Iron Man and Hulk.
Basically, DC had 2 Michael Jordans on their roster so they did the smart thing and used their 2 Michael Jordans to lead the way. MCU didn't have any Michael Jordan on their roster so they had to use shitty characters like Iron Man and Hulk.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 28, 2017 16:21:46 GMT
What strategy? it's not like Marvel had any big hitters when they started the MCU. Spiderman, F4 and X-Men would have been the big-hitters for Marvel Exactly, it meant that instead of taking the lazy way out they had to put effort into building up their characters and making them more A-List (though in the comics, Iron Man and Cap are A-Listers). Now we have Guardians of the Galaxy beating out Superman and Batman at the Movies.enjoy the momet, the momentum will wane quicker than you might imagine. Batman and Superman were big the last century and will be so for the next while most to all of the MCU characters will have long disappeared into the phantom zone of nerd obscurity again where they came from and belong.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 28, 2017 17:53:24 GMT
The problem with DC though is that they are entirely dependent on Batman and Superman.
Outside of those two, except for Wonder Woman which only just came out they've no success with any one else. Even Superman has only ever been a mixed success in theatres.
Marvel gave away their big properties and yet still made the MCU the phenomenon it is today which DC are struggling to replicate even with their two main characters.
DC would never have made a successful Cinematic Universe without those two unlike how Marvel was able to.
|
|