Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 21:05:25 GMT
No, I'm just tired of The House of Mouse being the only place in town consistently making good comic book movies and I'm equally tired of the other fandoms rewarding WB and Fox for lackluster products and rarely demanding more from them. People are demanding more. Movies like BvS and SS aren’t celebrated as great films by the majority of people. I’ve never expressed the belief that they were actually good movies, even though I wish they were. Yes, it took two of the worst superhero films ever made to get the DC fandom mobilized. But it won't last because WB is still resting on its laurels in many ways. Hyper-focus on Batman with most of the upcoming films being set in his corner of the universe? Check. And the FoX-Men fans are apparently too stupid to realize they're being given a bum deal from that universe.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 7, 2017 22:07:24 GMT
Luckily, they will never claw the IP back again. As you said, in MCU we would not get Logans, Deadpool or the better X-Men films. They would dumb it down, make it formulaic and for the little kiddies. Better let the franchise die than humiliate it this way. Logan was only good fro it being Jackman's last hurrah, which gave it an easy time with critics. Deadpool was made because the FOX execs thought it would bomb and stayed away. Now they'll interfere and mess it up. As for "being for kids", so was Star Wars (all of it), Star Trek, Dr Who, Lord of the Rings....most successes are "for kids" actually.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 7, 2017 22:11:37 GMT
Hell no, never change a winning team. Logan, anyone? This is the only major franchise that is willing to give the audience some out-of-the-box surprise on the level of Dredd, Kick-Ass or Watchmen. Looking forward to what's coming, good or bad. Logan only got the reception it did because it was Jackman's last hurrah and because they killed Logan in the end. It's a one-shot thing
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 7, 2017 22:13:04 GMT
And they're the ones who truly makes formulaic films, especially X-Men. Logan was hardly what I’d call formulaic. Nah, it was predictable.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 8, 2017 2:24:45 GMT
coldenhaulfield "As far as those Phase One movies, they were absolutely unwatchable garbage except the first Iron Man, and the only reason people loved that was because it wasn't terrible and everyone was thrilled to see that RDJ hadn't overdosed behind a dumpster in Santa Monica. (Talk about your "artificial boosters," formersamhmd !) I get their significance in the broader context of the MCU, but I don't ever -- EVER -- want to see any of those films again, not even once. I'd rather watch Wolverine: Origins six times in a row than watch Incredible Hulk, Cap: TFA, and Thor; my god, Thor is a terrible film. It made me want to backhand the big lug who plays Thor and strangle Natalie Portman until she died of a broken heart. Again!" Hey, the Phase One films are all solid. Um, no, everyone liked Ironman because its an excellent superhero film. It wouldn't have sparked Downey's comeback if it wasn't only "not terrible."
"And I'm prolly the only one alive who feels this way, but I prefer Batffleck to Bale, Clooney, or Kilmer. Seriously." Please tell me its not because he ruthlessly kills his enemies.
I agree that Iron Man is very good. I meant that it was met with such an overwhelmingly positive critical response because expectations were nonexistent. As for Affleck: not so much, no. I just liked his style. He "felt" more like Bruce Wayne to me than the previous dudes since Keaton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 2:42:58 GMT
coldenhaulfield "As far as those Phase One movies, they were absolutely unwatchable garbage except the first Iron Man, and the only reason people loved that was because it wasn't terrible and everyone was thrilled to see that RDJ hadn't overdosed behind a dumpster in Santa Monica. (Talk about your "artificial boosters," formersamhmd !) I get their significance in the broader context of the MCU, but I don't ever -- EVER -- want to see any of those films again, not even once. I'd rather watch Wolverine: Origins six times in a row than watch Incredible Hulk, Cap: TFA, and Thor; my god, Thor is a terrible film. It made me want to backhand the big lug who plays Thor and strangle Natalie Portman until she died of a broken heart. Again!" Hey, the Phase One films are all solid. Um, no, everyone liked Ironman because its an excellent superhero film. It wouldn't have sparked Downey's comeback if it wasn't only "not terrible."
"And I'm prolly the only one alive who feels this way, but I prefer Batffleck to Bale, Clooney, or Kilmer. Seriously." Please tell me its not because he ruthlessly kills his enemies.
I agree that Iron Man is very good. I meant that it was met with such an overwhelmingly positive critical response because expectations were nonexistent. As for Affleck: not so much, no. I just liked his style. He "felt" more like Bruce Wayne to me than the previous dudes since Keaton. Iron: Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Affleck: Fair enough. I however find it difficult to get invested in him because we're only seeing this Batman at his worst. Not being along for the ride in his personal journey which led him to such a dark place didn't help. In light of BvS, I am now of the firm opinion that we need to see the best of any given Batman before they take him down such a dark route.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 8, 2017 3:14:42 GMT
I agree that Iron Man is very good. I meant that it was met with such an overwhelmingly positive critical response because expectations were nonexistent. As for Affleck: not so much, no. I just liked his style. He "felt" more like Bruce Wayne to me than the previous dudes since Keaton. Iron: Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Affleck: Fair enough. I however find it difficult to get invested in him because we're only seeing this Batman at his worst. Not being along for the ride in his personal journey which led him to such a dark place didn't help. In light of BvS, I am now of the firm opinion that we need to see the best of any given Batman before they take him down such a dark route.
Yeah, they never really established what exactly is this specific Bruce's background prior to BvS. I remember sort of wondering exactly what, if anything, from any of the previous flicks was canon when I started watching it but decided that fixating on it would detract from taking in the movie and sort of just forgot about it. I guess Suicide Squad gives us some background to that effect, at least with respect to those specific characters (Joker, Harley, Deadshot, Croc, and whoever else).
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 8, 2017 8:18:32 GMT
So, to summarize, even on an MCU-forum we have an overwhelming agreement that the X-Men must remain with Fox. Reading through this was interesting, in a nutshell the results of the discussions are as follows:
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 8, 2017 10:22:28 GMT
So, to summarize, even on an MCU-forum we have an overwhelming agreement that the X-Men must remain with Fox. Reading through this was interesting, in a nutshell the results of the discussions are as follows: Eh, Deadpool was made by Ryan Reynolds. No one at Fox WANTED to make it. Now that they're involved they'll mess it up. The X-Men movies are utter formula. No innovation or political storylines at all. The MCU wins there, with how they've been showing more innovation than other CBMs in years. Logan had the artificial boosters of being Jackman's last hurrah which gave it an easy time from critics and audiences. It's a one-shot deal, not something FOX can repeat. DOFP had the artificial boosters of the old cast coming back for a Retcon to give them a silly fairytale ending. Apocalypse showed that FOX can't keep it up. Tony Stark and Dr Strange's storylines are straight out of the original comics, they predate Logan by at least a decade. If anything, Logan's arc owes to them. The only drawback I can see to the X-Men in the MCU is that mutants wouldn't be the center of the Universe anymore because there's also aliens and magic and non-mutant superhumans. X-Men fans have always hated the idea of the world not revolving around mutants for whatever petty reason.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Oct 8, 2017 12:17:50 GMT
So, to summarize, even on an MCU-forum we have an overwhelming agreement that the X-Men must remain with Fox. Reading through this was interesting, in a nutshell the results of the discussions are as follows: Eh, Deadpool was made by Ryan Reynolds. No one at Fox WANTED to make it. Now that they're involved they'll mess it up. The X-Men movies are utter formula. No innovation or political storylines at all. The MCU wins there, with how they've been showing more innovation than other CBMs in years. Logan had the artificial boosters of being Jackman's last hurrah which gave it an easy time from critics and audiences. It's a one-shot deal, not something FOX can repeat. DOFP had the artificial boosters of the old cast coming back for a Retcon to give them a silly fairytale ending. Apocalypse showed that FOX can't keep it up. Tony Stark and Dr Strange's storylines are straight out of the original comics, they predate Logan by at least a decade. If anything, Logan's arc owes to them. The only drawback I can see to the X-Men in the MCU is that mutants wouldn't be the center of the Universe anymore because there's also aliens and magic and non-mutant superhumans. X-Men fans have always hated the idea of the world not revolving around mutants for whatever petty reason. Did you know that they define Insanity as saying the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results...?
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Oct 8, 2017 12:24:53 GMT
I agree that Iron Man is very good. I meant that it was met with such an overwhelmingly positive critical response because expectations were nonexistent. As for Affleck: not so much, no. I just liked his style. He "felt" more like Bruce Wayne to me than the previous dudes since Keaton. Iron Man has not aged well. I bet you did not watch it for along time? Try it, it's amazing how quickly conveyer belt formula runs stale when repeated ad nauseam. Batfleck was surprisingly good, I think he's an annoying, mediocre actor, but his performance here was up there.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Oct 8, 2017 12:38:38 GMT
Logan was hardly what I’d call formulaic. Nah, it was predictable. Logan was the least predictable and most disturbing CBM in recent memory. It's a graphic novel rather. I'd say they created Miller's Dark Knight Returns for the X-Men Universe by thinking this character to the uncompromising end. It's up there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 14:49:47 GMT
I agree that Iron Man is very good. I meant that it was met with such an overwhelmingly positive critical response because expectations were nonexistent. As for Affleck: not so much, no. I just liked his style. He "felt" more like Bruce Wayne to me than the previous dudes since Keaton. Iron Man has not aged well. I bet you did not watch it for along time? Try it, it's amazing how quickly conveyer belt formula runs stale when repeated ad nauseam. Batfleck was surprisingly good, I think he's an annoying, mediocre actor, but his performance here was up there. I re-watch Iron Man at least once a year. And it does hold up. Of course the CGI has come a long way and that shows but overall the movie is pretty good to re-watch. I disagree. You know what movies are really unwatchable? All Star Wars movies after the original trilogy. I might make an exception for Rogue One.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 8, 2017 15:58:58 GMT
So, to summarize, even on an MCU-forum we have an overwhelming agreement that the X-Men must remain with Fox. Reading through this was interesting, in a nutshell the results of the discussions are as follows: Perfect summary!
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Oct 8, 2017 16:13:29 GMT
Iron Man has not aged well. I bet you did not watch it for along time? Try it, it's amazing how quickly conveyer belt formula runs stale when repeated ad nauseam. Batfleck was surprisingly good, I think he's an annoying, mediocre actor, but his performance here was up there. I re-watch Iron Man at least once a year. My condolences. Duly noted albeit hardly surprising. What did I say about insanity above? Well, that's good to know. If you expected me to break out in bitter fanboy tears because of this startling revelation,...well, then you have succeeded. Congrats, you are a tough one.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 8, 2017 16:49:05 GMT
I agree that Iron Man is very good. I meant that it was met with such an overwhelmingly positive critical response because expectations were nonexistent. As for Affleck: not so much, no. I just liked his style. He "felt" more like Bruce Wayne to me than the previous dudes since Keaton. Iron Man has not aged well. I bet you did not watch it for along time? Try it, it's amazing how quickly conveyer belt formula runs stale when repeated ad nauseam. Batfleck was surprisingly good, I think he's an annoying, mediocre actor, but his performance here was up there. I haven't seen it since 2008 when I watched it in the theater. I remember being particularly impressed (and bemused) by the scene(s) where Tony MacGyvers a brand new suit out of like sand and popsicle sticks and a pack of Big Red or whatever. I thought it was a "fun" B+/A- comic book movie, whereas I genuinely found the other Phase One outings to be super paint-by-numbers, skippable, thumbs-down fluff. Honestly, though, I've never watched any MCU movie more than once except The Avengers, which I saw thrice in the theater and a couple times here and there afterward. I've always had a soft spot for Affleck because of his performances in the Kevin Smith movies back in the day and his hilarious self-deprecating commentary on said performances on the DVDs. But I don't think he's an "amazing" actor or anything. I just -- like I said -- found his portrayal of Bruce to be more in line with my expectations of the character than anybody but good old Michael Keaton.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 8, 2017 16:51:30 GMT
Iron Man has not aged well. I bet you did not watch it for along time? Try it, it's amazing how quickly conveyer belt formula runs stale when repeated ad nauseam. Batfleck was surprisingly good, I think he's an annoying, mediocre actor, but his performance here was up there. I re-watch Iron Man at least once a year. And it does hold up. Of course the CGI has come a long way and that shows but overall the movie is pretty good to re-watch. I disagree. You know what movies are really unwatchable? All Star Wars movies after the original trilogy. I might make an exception for Rogue One. The RO comment intrigues me as a big Star Wars nerd; why Rogue One specifically rather than any others? AND ARE YOU INCLUDING THE EWOK MOVIES?!?!!1 As Lucy from Twin Peaks would say: "It could make a difference."
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Oct 8, 2017 17:10:36 GMT
Iron Man has not aged well. I bet you did not watch it for along time? Try it, it's amazing how quickly conveyer belt formula runs stale when repeated ad nauseam. Batfleck was surprisingly good, I think he's an annoying, mediocre actor, but his performance here was up there. I haven't seen it since 2008 when I watched it in the theater. I remember being particularly impressed (and bemused) by the scene(s) where Tony MacGyvers a brand new suit out of like sand and popsicle sticks and a pack of Big Red or whatever. I thought it was a "fun" B+/A- comic book movie, whereas I genuinely found the other Phase One outings to be super paint-by-numbers, skippable, thumbs-down fluff. Honestly, though, I've never watched any MCU movie more than once except The Avengers, which I saw thrice in the theater and a couple times here and there afterward. Thought so. Iron Man 1 IMO is next to The Avengers still the only outing worthy of classic status so far, leagues ahead of the other stuff regardless of phases. But it suffers from it's character arc and formula elements being recycled so much by MCU within only 10 years so that even the solid RDJ performance now seems bland. A little bit like A New Hope and it's Death Stars being rehashed until your head explodes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 17:17:11 GMT
I re-watch Iron Man at least once a year. My condolences. Duly noted albeit hardly surprising. What did I say about insanity above? Well, that's good to know. If you expected me to break out in bitter fanboy tears because of this startling revelation,...well, then you have succeeded. Congrats, you are a tough one. When it comes to me being insane I must dissapoint you. My mother had me tested. My wife is the insane one. She chose to marry me. And I dont want you to cry. I understand you are a fan of the prequels. I cant take anything you say about the taste of other seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 17:20:53 GMT
I re-watch Iron Man at least once a year. And it does hold up. Of course the CGI has come a long way and that shows but overall the movie is pretty good to re-watch. I disagree. You know what movies are really unwatchable? All Star Wars movies after the original trilogy. I might make an exception for Rogue One. The RO comment intrigues me as a big Star Wars nerd; why Rogue One specifically rather than any others? AND ARE YOU INCLUDING THE EWOK MOVIES?!?!!1 As Lucy from Twin Peaks would say: "It could make a difference." Rogue One was despite its faults an intruiging film. Im split on that one. I have never seen the Ewok films. They are for kids.
|
|