|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Nov 15, 2017 16:31:40 GMT
And that was 14 years ago. It's a shame the entire trilogy didn't win Best Picture, thought the Academy made up for it when Return of the King 11/11 that night. Very true. Before that... Probably the awards Jurassic Park won. Another ten years back from that. And honestly, if I was an Academy voter, I would've given Marvel 2 Oscars already. GOTG for Best Makeup and Doctor Strange for Best VFX.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Nov 15, 2017 16:34:28 GMT
When was the last time the right movie won Best Picture? They almost did it this year, but then whoops, we made a mistake, the real winner is Moonlight, not La La Land. I was apprehensive over the Awards this time, because there was a major backlash against the Oscars for the "Too White" thing...but then La-La Land came along and it's everything an Oscar Bait movie usually is (it's a musical and it's a movie about Hollywood. Two things the Academy loves giving awards to) and they were clearly torn over wanting to give the awards to a movie that basically is patting the Academy on its back and wanting to show they are progressive (they aren't) by paying attention to a film that's the polar opposite end of the spectrum of Oscar-Bait movies (dramatic pic about Homosexual Minorities). I know Marvel will have a hard time this year too, because of the backlash against Disney for the LA Times thing. Even though GOTG2 and Ragnarok deserve awards for their technical feats. Indeed! I think one of the Marvel movies will nominated for visual effects this year, maybe 2. I'm predicting: Blade Runner 2049 Thor: Ragnarok Spider-Man: Homecoming Star Wars: The Last Jedi War for the Planet of the Apes
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Nov 15, 2017 16:38:35 GMT
The movie's response seems closer to MoS than BvS at the very least. That's kind of what I figured for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 15, 2017 16:44:16 GMT
He's also ignoring that a filmmaker like David Lynch never won any Oscars either. Alfred Hitchcock too, and that man was a cinematic genius. wrong, Hitch won for Rebecca as Best Film, and was nominated 5 times as director too, and he got an achievement award 68 (ask the raptor I told him). Sam's DL example is slightly better, but still silly. Here is why:
1. Comparing a single person to a movie universe (of thousands of people) is a invalid analogy misconception only MC or DC comic books nerds could commit.
2. False Cause: Battlefield Earth never got an Oscar. Does that make it better?
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Nov 15, 2017 16:54:40 GMT
Alfred Hitchcock too, and that man was a cinematic genius. wrong, Hitch won for Rebecca as Best Film, and was nominated 5 times as director too, and he got an achievement award 68 (ask the raptor I told him). Sam's DL example is slightly better, but still silly. Here is why:
1. Comparing a single person to a movie universe (of thousands of people) is a invalid analogy misconception only MC or DC comic books nerds could commit.
2. False Cause: Battlefield Earth never got an Oscar. Does that make it better?
No he didn't, producers win Best Picture Oscars, and Hitchcock wasn't the producer of Rebecca. 1. Ok, but you're basically saying the DCEU is doing much better than the MCU because it already has an Oscar and the DCEU never made a film/TV show lower than 10% on RT. 2. No, and that doesn't make Battlefield Earth and MCU movies on the same level of quality either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 16:56:30 GMT
There's quite a few stinkers in there. Yikes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2017 16:57:40 GMT
wrong, Hitch won for Rebecca as Best Film, and was nominated 5 times as director too, and he got an achievement award 68 (ask the raptor I told him). Sam's DL example is slightly better, but still silly. Here is why:
1. Comparing a single person to a movie universe (of thousands of people) is a invalid analogy misconception only MC or DC comic books nerds could commit.
2. False Cause: Battlefield Earth never got an Oscar. Does that make it better?
No he didn't, producers win Best Picture Oscars, and Hitchcock wasn't the producer of Rebecca. 1. Ok, but you're basically saying the DCEU is doing much better than the MCU because it already has an Oscar and the DCEU never made a film/TV show lower than 10% on RT. 2. No, and that doesn't make Battlefield Earth and MCU movies on the same level of quality either. Yep. Films win "Best Picture" because of studio politics, and occasionally, because of immense popular demand by audiences. Other than that, its about who can kiss the most ass. 1. I'm sure the DCEU is doing better in Tristan's mind. 2. I love how Tristan assumes no film ever gets unfairly snubbed.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 15, 2017 16:59:26 GMT
1. Comparing a single person to a movie universe (of thousands of people) is Perfectly valid, considering his filmography. Stanley Kubrick also only ever got one Oscar for Visual Effects. It won several razzies, while the MCU has never been nominated for one. Whilst the DCEU has been nominated for several.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 15, 2017 17:26:53 GMT
Gentlemen, this thread needs an enema. Let's have a closer look at some of these reviews. Stanton's incendiary one-liners are obviously only meant to exacerbate. Here is the straight dope. Positive remarks are bolded wherever possible. Chris Nashawaty (Entertainment Weekly): “Justice League … marks a pretty steep comedown from the giddy highs of Wonder Woman … Steppenwolf is one of those patently phony CGI creations that gives the film a uncanny-valley shlockiness. He looks like a cross between a Viking and a billy goat … Affleck looks like the highest-paid captive in a hostage video. Fortunately, there are other actors who look like they actually want to be there … It’s obvious to anyone watching Justice League next to the other DC films that the studio brass handed down a mandate to lighten the mood and make things funnier and more Marvel-y. And, to an extent, Justice League accomplishes that. But it also feels like so much attention was paid to the smaller, fizzier character moments that the bigger picture of the film’s overarching plot was a second or third priority Someday, hopefully soon, DC will get the recipe right again and duplicate Wonder Woman’s storytelling magic. But today isn’t that day, and Justice League, unfortunately, isn’t that film.” Robie Collin (The Telegraph): “Warner Bros.’ latest hapless attempt to jump-start their DC Comics blockbuster brand, which at this point looks less like a cinematic universe than a pop-cultural black hole, sucking up as much money and audience goodwill as the studio can shovel into it … It’s consistently embarrassing to watch, and features plot holes so yawningly vast they have a kind of Grand Canyon-like splendour: part of you wants to hang around to see what they look like at sunset … the end result is a broken film, swimming in bad CGI and forgettable mayhem, that you can’t imagine any number of rewrites or reshoots could have saved…Justice League is a mess in ways cheaper productions could only dream about. A post-credits scene dutifully teases more to come, but the film’s heart just isn’t in it. After Justice League, there’s nowhere else any of this can go..” Todd McCarthy (THR): “The increasingly turgid tales of Batman and Superman — joined, unfortunately for her, by Wonder Woman — trudge along to ever-diminishing returns in Justice League. Garishly unattractive to look at and lacking the spirit that made Wonder Woman, which came out five months ago, the most engaging of Warner Bros.’ DC Comics-derived extravaganzas to date, this hodgepodge throws a bunch of superheroes into a mix that neither congeals nor particularly makes you want to see more of them in future. Plainly put, it’s simply not fun … Snyder and Whedon guide it all with the usual heavy hand and with a visual style that’s both gloomy and garish. Many shots are elaborated upon with effects-powered pools of disco-era lighting, zig-zaggy electrical charges and visualized power currents that fill in the compositions in unattractive ways. One only has to recall for a moment the rich images that Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister consistently created for the Dark Knight trilogy to realize how far these Superman films are from any kind of pictorial distinction.” Owen Gleiberman (Variety): “The film is the definition of an adequate high-spirited studio lark: no more, no less. If fans get excited about it, that may mostly be because they’re excited about getting excited. Yet the movie is no cheat. It’s a tasty franchise delivery system that kicks a certain series back into gear. Every moment feels like it’s been test-driven for our pleasure. As a piece of product, “Justice League” is “superior” to “Batman v Superman,” but it’s also about as close to generic as a sharp-witted high-octane comic-book movie can get. There’s hardly a trope in it you haven’t seen before.” Eric Kohn (IndieWire): “….The resulting 119-minute pileup of showdowns and one-liners is an undeniably tighter, more engaging experience. It’s also a tired, conventional attempt to play by the rules, with “hold for laughs” moments shoehorned between rapid-fire action — a begrudging concession that the Marvel formula works, and a shameless attempt to replicate it … As “Justice League” plods on autopilot, the Marvel-movie parallels range from subtle to shameless. The group chemistry is strictly dimestore Avengers, while Batman takes on a paternal role with The Flash that weakly apes the Iron Man/Spider-Man dynamic of “Spider-Man: Homecoming.” The Flash makes oddball jokes about brunch and mutters about confidence issues, while Batman growls nuggets of advice as quickly as possible before the scene just… ends.” Katie Walsh (Chicago Tribune): “Snyder brought a level of darkness and nihilism to this franchise, so it’s very, very strange that “Justice League” is as quippy as it is. No doubt this is due to the presence of Whedon, who takes a screenwriting credit, but it just does not fit with Snyder’s dour takes on the characters. Not to mention the dialogue is painful. Miller’s neurotic routine is initially quite charming, until his one-liners become incredibly cheesy and tired. Aquaman peppers his speech with many dude-brah phrases, while Cyborg, regrettably, utters “boo-yah” at one point … Gadot as Wonder Woman is a bright spot, a reminder of her wondrous stand-alone film from this summer. But the snippets of scenes with the Amazons won’t satisfy anyone looking for more Amazonian fun, and the way the camera lasciviously lingers on low-angle shots of Gadot’s body is a clear indication of the difference between the male and female gaze on film.” Peter Travers (Rolling Stone): “For those who loathe Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and they are legion, Justice League will be just the corrective followup they’re looking for … The scenes of the League members together, bickering and bonding, spike the film with humor and genuine feeling, creating a rooting interest in the audience. Without it, the film would crumble. Let’s face it, Steppenwolf is a CGI yawn, the action sequences are often a digital blur, the soundtrack defaults to loud whenever inspiration wanes and keeping it light becomes the first step to staying superficial. Justice League is a decent crowdpleaser, preferable in every way to the candy-assed cynicism of Suicide Squad.” Kate Taylor (Daily Globe and Mail): “…. there’s no shortage of interesting characters with intriguing powers on display here, but there’s frustratingly little space to tell their individual stories and, biggest problem of all, they lack a worthy opponent …both the increasingly fleshy Ben Affleck and a desiccated Jeremy Irons are starting to feel as tired as their dry repartee. Batman’s romantic chemistry with Gal Gadot’s sharp Wonder Woman might liven things up, but there’s precious little time to pursue it. Similarly, the comic addition of Ezra Miller’s nerdy Flash, the machismo offered by Jason Momoa in the role of Aquaman or the repressed sorrow of Ray Fisher’s Cyborg as his body turns to metal all hold out dramatic potential, but there is never room to untangle their back stories or do anything more than hint at present predicaments.” Brian Truitt (USA Today): “Justice League is as solid an outing as any superhero fan could hope, with a clear family vibe: Wonder Woman and Batman prove to be a dynamic mom-and-dad duo while the fastest kid around steals the show…Bad CGI villains also continue to plague the DC superhero lineup. Doomsday was a huge miss in BvS, Ares was atrocious in Wonder Woman, and Steppenwolf is another large fail. Cate Blanchett, currently vamping it up in Thor: Ragnarok, is a reminder that there’s something special about a tangible villain. But Justice League does more right than wrong. Instead of having its heroes punch each other a lot, most of the tension comes from philosophical differences on what it means to serve the greater good, and the movie also pays homage to what’s come before, with Danny Elfman’s phenomenal score successfully weaving and twisting Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman themes.” Jim Vejvoda (IGN): Warner Bros. and DC Films had two major goals to achieve with Justice League. First, to cleanse the palette of those turned off by the relentlessly grim BvS; and second, to make viewers enjoy these superheroes enough to want to see further screen appearances by them. Justice League mostly succeeds in accomplishing those two key objectives, despite its sloppy execution. It’s messy and flawed but it still offers enough entertainment value (mostly thanks to its likable characters) to make it worthwhile. … Some reshot sequences do stand out like proverbial sore thumbs due to obvious continuity differences. But at least emotionally and tonally, Justice League is fairly consistent throughout. It does not feel like a movie with an identity crisis as much as I’d feared.” Matt Singer (ScreenCrush): “Elfman’s music still works perfectly in a modern context. His familiar notes gave me chills. The rest of Justice League gave me chills of a different kind; the kind you feel when you receive bad news about a sick relative, or after you quickly gulp down a big glass of milk and suddenly remember the carton expired two weeks ago. Or the kind you get when talented actors and skilled filmmakers completely botch a movie starring some of the most beloved fictional characters in history … Justice League is a collection of missed opportunities and flubbed ideas.” Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian): “Momoa brings some punch and humour to this film, especially with Aquaman’s inadvertent confession of a certain tendresse for Wonder Woman, and Ezra Miller does his best with the Flash, whose job it is to provide the nerdy, incredulous, alienated humour. Ray Fisher, too, does his best with a figure half-hidden in hi-tech armour. But Ben Affleck is unrelaxed and ill-at-ease in the role of Batman/Bruce, unconvincing in both the bat armour and the three-piece suit of the wealthy plutocrat….In the end, though, there is something ponderous and cumbersome about Justice League; the great revelation is very laborious and solemn and the tiresome post-credits sting is a microcosm of the film’s disappointment. Some rough justice is needed with the casting of this franchise.” With everything in consideration, it sounds like the Justice League film we deserve. Well, it sounds like I'll still enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 15, 2017 17:57:23 GMT
- Justice League review – good, evil and dullness do battle 2/5 (The Guardian) - The new DC Comics movie is the anti-'Batman v Superman': a superhero epic that's more light than dark, and the essence of generic competence. (Variety) - Justice League review: DC's superhero embarrassment is beyond saving 1/5 (The Telegraph) - ‘Justice League’ Review: Beyond Saving (Collider) collider.com/justice-league-review/ YOU MUST READ THIS REVIEW - Justice League review: A beautiful, tormented mess (Polygon)
- Justice League Is a Big, Ugly Mess, DC follows the triumph of Wonder Woman with a bust.(Vanity Fair)
and
The from The Independent, they have a consensus that reads
Justice League review round-up: Critics call the DCEU movie 'consistently embarrassing' and 'rotten'
- As a pure ride, Justice League nicely panders to the lowest common denominator of moviegoing expectations (IndieWire) - Justice League’s most significant shortcoming is how forgettable it all is. There’s barely a moment that sticks, not a single sequence to rival the standout superhero set-pieces of recent years. (Total Film) - Perhaps the Justice League franchise really has been rotten from the start, experiencing not evolution but entropy, with Wonder Woman standing as an anomalous glimmer of false hope. (Vanity Fair) - The only thing that “saves” Justice League is a low bar and more promises. (Collider)
With Thor: Ragnarok there was only a focus on the good. With JL there's only a focus on the bad, eh Arch? Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 15, 2017 17:59:08 GMT
- Justice League review – good, evil and dullness do battle 2/5 (The Guardian) - The new DC Comics movie is the anti-'Batman v Superman': a superhero epic that's more light than dark, and the essence of generic competence. (Variety) - Justice League review: DC's superhero embarrassment is beyond saving 1/5 (The Telegraph) - ‘Justice League’ Review: Beyond Saving (Collider) collider.com/justice-league-review/ YOU MUST READ THIS REVIEW - Justice League review: A beautiful, tormented mess (Polygon)
- Justice League Is a Big, Ugly Mess, DC follows the triumph of Wonder Woman with a bust.(Vanity Fair)
and
The from The Independent, they have a consensus that reads
Justice League review round-up: Critics call the DCEU movie 'consistently embarrassing' and 'rotten'
- As a pure ride, Justice League nicely panders to the lowest common denominator of moviegoing expectations (IndieWire) - Justice League’s most significant shortcoming is how forgettable it all is. There’s barely a moment that sticks, not a single sequence to rival the standout superhero set-pieces of recent years. (Total Film) - Perhaps the Justice League franchise really has been rotten from the start, experiencing not evolution but entropy, with Wonder Woman standing as an anomalous glimmer of false hope. (Vanity Fair) - The only thing that “saves” Justice League is a low bar and more promises. (Collider)
With Thor: Ragnarok there was only a focus on the good. With JL there's only a focus on the bad, eh Arch? Enjoy.
If the overall whole is ultimately enjoyable, critics and viewers will be willing to tolerate the bad because we walk away satisfied. I haven't seen JL, I will though. If it's ultimately unsatisfying then I'll walk away knowing it.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 15, 2017 18:06:54 GMT
- Justice League review – good, evil and dullness do battle 2/5 (The Guardian) - The new DC Comics movie is the anti-'Batman v Superman': a superhero epic that's more light than dark, and the essence of generic competence. (Variety) - Justice League review: DC's superhero embarrassment is beyond saving 1/5 (The Telegraph) - ‘Justice League’ Review: Beyond Saving (Collider) collider.com/justice-league-review/ YOU MUST READ THIS REVIEW - Justice League review: A beautiful, tormented mess (Polygon)
- Justice League Is a Big, Ugly Mess, DC follows the triumph of Wonder Woman with a bust.(Vanity Fair)
and
The from The Independent, they have a consensus that reads
Justice League review round-up: Critics call the DCEU movie 'consistently embarrassing' and 'rotten'
- As a pure ride, Justice League nicely panders to the lowest common denominator of moviegoing expectations (IndieWire) - Justice League’s most significant shortcoming is how forgettable it all is. There’s barely a moment that sticks, not a single sequence to rival the standout superhero set-pieces of recent years. (Total Film) - Perhaps the Justice League franchise really has been rotten from the start, experiencing not evolution but entropy, with Wonder Woman standing as an anomalous glimmer of false hope. (Vanity Fair) - The only thing that “saves” Justice League is a low bar and more promises. (Collider)
With Thor: Ragnarok there was only a focus on the good. With JL there's only a focus on the bad, eh Arch? Enjoy.
And that is completely unfair, Mr. lenlenlen1. Note that I, Lord Death Man, have posted several JL reviews and highlighted the positive notes in bold in this very thread.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 15, 2017 18:41:57 GMT
I'm actually not in it for the saltiness, but I do enjoy watching Marvel do it so right and then seeing how another company does it so wrong. Why would you want to see any company get it wrong? Wouldn't you rather have movies you enjoyed? There's good reviews too so why aren't you posting their headlines? Well I have a lot of movies to enjoy and I'm not particularly interested in whether DC's are good or bad so bad is just as entertaining. I can't say that I'd rather have good DC movies, no. It's really the same reason people watch dumpster fires, you just don't get that many chances to watch a disaster where there is no real harm being caused. I mean I get a lot of true DC fans would want their films to be better and I feel bad for them, I really do. But I'll be honest, I do find it quite entertaining that it's been so bad.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 15, 2017 18:44:51 GMT
Why would you want to see any company get it wrong? Wouldn't you rather have movies you enjoyed? There's good reviews too so why aren't you posting their headlines? Well I have a lot of movies to enjoy and I'm not particularly interested in whether DC's are good or bad so bad is just as entertaining. I can't say that I'd rather have good DC movies, no. It's really the same reason people watch dumpster fires, you just don't get that many chances to watch a disaster where there is no real harm being caused. I mean I get a lot of true DC fans would want their films to be better and I feel bad for them, I really do. But I'll be honest, I do find it quite entertaining that it's been so bad.
What bizarre logic.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 15, 2017 18:47:07 GMT
- Justice League review – good, evil and dullness do battle 2/5 (The Guardian) - The new DC Comics movie is the anti-'Batman v Superman': a superhero epic that's more light than dark, and the essence of generic competence. (Variety) - Justice League review: DC's superhero embarrassment is beyond saving 1/5 (The Telegraph) - ‘Justice League’ Review: Beyond Saving (Collider) collider.com/justice-league-review/ YOU MUST READ THIS REVIEW - Justice League review: A beautiful, tormented mess (Polygon)
- Justice League Is a Big, Ugly Mess, DC follows the triumph of Wonder Woman with a bust.(Vanity Fair)
and
The from The Independent, they have a consensus that reads
Justice League review round-up: Critics call the DCEU movie 'consistently embarrassing' and 'rotten'
- As a pure ride, Justice League nicely panders to the lowest common denominator of moviegoing expectations (IndieWire) - Justice League’s most significant shortcoming is how forgettable it all is. There’s barely a moment that sticks, not a single sequence to rival the standout superhero set-pieces of recent years. (Total Film) - Perhaps the Justice League franchise really has been rotten from the start, experiencing not evolution but entropy, with Wonder Woman standing as an anomalous glimmer of false hope. (Vanity Fair) - The only thing that “saves” Justice League is a low bar and more promises. (Collider)
With Thor: Ragnarok there was only a focus on the good. With JL there's only a focus on the bad, eh Arch? Enjoy.
Because Ragnarok was good and JL appears not to be. Why would I focus on the bad of a good film and not be honest about a bad one? These aren't equal.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 15, 2017 18:47:57 GMT
Well I have a lot of movies to enjoy and I'm not particularly interested in whether DC's are good or bad so bad is just as entertaining. I can't say that I'd rather have good DC movies, no. It's really the same reason people watch dumpster fires, you just don't get that many chances to watch a disaster where there is no real harm being caused. I mean I get a lot of true DC fans would want their films to be better and I feel bad for them, I really do. But I'll be honest, I do find it quite entertaining that it's been so bad.
What bizarre logic. How so?
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 15, 2017 19:01:35 GMT
You say you have enough movies to enjoy so these movies getting bad reviews is entertaining in another way. Even though there's nothing really entertaining about a movie being bad and if they were good movies then you'd have have even more for you to enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Nov 15, 2017 19:10:20 GMT
You say you have enough movies to enjoy so these movies getting bad reviews is entertaining in another way. Even though there's nothing really entertaining about a movie being bad and if they were good movies then you'd have have even more for you to enjoy. No, it being good wouldn't be more entertaining than the uniqueness of it being so bad.
Maybe I should explain
I love following disaster productions like The Room, Samurai Cop, Fateful Findings, Manos: The Hands of Fate, Troll 2, and a lot of other really true disaster productions. I wouldn't want those films to be good because the enjoyability is that they're so bad.
And similarly the craziness that has been DC so far, has been entertaining to follow. I have no interest in DC being good.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 15, 2017 19:11:29 GMT
I don't care what anyone else thinks, I will see for myself on Friday.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 15, 2017 19:13:25 GMT
ArArArchStantonThat's fair enough then just as long as you don't attempt to get entertainment out of riling people up who do have interest in it being good.
|
|