|
Post by scabab on Dec 13, 2017 15:16:04 GMT
Stanley Ipkiss in "The Mask" was the same way in the original comics (in fact, he's pretty much what Deadpool's personality was based on) and no one minded the changes made in his movie. It's probably why it wasn't as good as Deadpool either. So? That would just be in comparison to the other older Spider-man from the previous PG-13 movies. That has nothing to do with an R rating. Again that has nothing to do with it being R rated. There's plenty of PG-13 movies that aren't considered "kiddy" like Planet of the Apes or James Bond. You're taking their views to the extreme. Just because they think they're a bit kiddy doesn't mean they want a violent R rated sex fest of a movie. Nobody said that though.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 13, 2017 15:40:56 GMT
It's probably why it wasn't as good as Deadpool either. I LIKED The Mask... I think it does have to do with it. I doubt they'd say he was kiddie if they got explicit underage sex scenes. Look at the happy reaction Fraco's Multiple Man movie is getting, when all it'll be is just the usual R Rated Sex Fest he always does except with a sc-fi bent. You don't see any of the anti-MCU people saying "Some MCU movies should be R, but not all of them.", they just say "They won't go Hard R" which means they want nothing but Hard R. Mangold thinks so.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Dec 13, 2017 16:22:27 GMT
Xavier got over his depression and drug addiction with no outside influence. There was nothing besides a pep talk to get rid of the chemicals and alcohol that was in his system. He just jumped on Cerebro and that was it. He didn't go to any kind of counseling for it. You see, it was time to end the movie so they needed Xavier to have his powers. No, he got his powers back because its a completion of his arc in the film which is the main plot theme, to regain his strength through the human power of hope which is also a important message in real life too. Tonys PTSD could have done a similar message but nope they watered it down to the point its not that pivotal in the plot as you said yourself. In fact the whole thing is a joke anyway as the after credit scene hes telling it to Banner who falls asleep. Stakes. And to make Tony learn a damn lesson for once that his reckless actions must bear consequences. Just like Rachel Dawes death had a emotional reaction in the character of Bruce Wayne and made question his whole intention of being Batman. Plot devices like these add extra layers of realism and gravity to these kind of films. As I said the MCU is restraining in that aspect. A lot of people would have preferred the Mandarin from the opening. Emotion as in a reaction thats not just laughing and wowing constantly throughout a comic movie. Coulson and Fury purposefully fake died. Thats cheating your audience. The X characters that died at the time was a genuine decision and wasnt some "over arching" plotline. They could have utilized Peggy a lot more or given a proper send off in Civil War that maybe gave Steve a reason to have more conviction in his actions and decisions in Civil War. A scene like in Spiderman 2 where Aunt May inspired Peter with, I believe there us a hero in all of us speech. Or conversely in Dark Knight Rises when Alfred tries to talk Bruce out of returning as Batman. Or old xavier inspiring young Xavier. A scene between Peggy telling Steve to stick to his beliefs or something similar would have been priceless. Oh and Steve has very little on screen history and zero chemistry with Sharon. The scene was 100% a comedy gag. So you are saying Xavier has a new mutant power called hope that can get rid of the drugs and alcohol in his system? No, I said that Tony's PTSD was a personal thing that had nothing to do with the villain. You are the one that said that they should have had the villain use it against him. And Banner was falling asleep because he is not that kind of doctor. He didn't care to listen to Stark's problems. So we just randomly kill characters? But that's only for the MCU, huh? They didn't kill any heroes in the X-men movies. Oh, I'm sorry, they killed characters in the X-men movies between movies because they didn't want to use them anymore. They killed Cyclops because he was making another movie and was only in that one because of contracts. They killed characters in DoFP, but brought them back at the end of the movie. What are the stakes in the X-men movies again? Nobody dies there why should they randomly kill the love interest in Iron Man 3? Who the hell is Rachel Dawes? Oh the made for the movie character that was meant to die from the beginning? What about the more important character like Selina Kyle? Coulson actually died. He was brought back to life using alien DNA. Tahiti. Fury fake died because that's what he does. He's a spy that had a bunch of people after him. Not faking his death would have had people constantly chasing him. Are you mad that you weren't in on Fury faking his death? Is that it? You need to be told the plan of the characters? What do you mean a genuine decision. The X-men characters died and were brought back to life. Hell they had them die more than once in the same movie. And brought back to life after both times. In one movie. Peggy's story was over. She was there in Winter Soldier only to let us know that Steve visits her. They killed her off to free Steve. So everyone needed to give Steve a reason to do what he does? Didn't Aunt May give Peter the same speech (or a variation of it) in all 3 movies? Priceless? She wasn't that type of character. He's been living across from her the whole time since he woke up. Just because you don't see it through all the movies doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, they tell us that what the deal is. And no it was not a "comedy gag". Only their expression while looking on. I think it's more that you look at everything that happens in the MCU as happening for a laugh because it is the MCU. They can have a completely serious movie and you'd still say that the whole movie had one joke after the other.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 13, 2017 16:25:13 GMT
So did I but it wasn't as good as Deadpool. Probably could have done with an R rating actually then they could have really got wild with it. No they wouldn't but then they'd complain on how it doesn't fit the character and went to far in the opposite direction. That's because it's good when they try different things. Nobody cares about Multiple Man in the first place so that doing whatever they want with it could make it standout from the usual norm. It's boring if they keep making the same kind of movies all the time. That isn't what he's saying, he's directed PG-13 movies himself.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 13, 2017 16:33:07 GMT
So did I but it wasn't as good as Deadpool. Probably could have done with an R rating actually then they could have really got wild with it. Maybe, but the Mask also didn't have the hype machine that Deadpool had behind it as well. It still holds up as a good film. Now you see how the MCU is in a no-win scenario with some people? But it isn't something new, if you know what Franco's usual works are. And saying "Nobody cares so if they change things it doesn't matter" isn't much of an argument seeing how the MCU made us care about D-Listers like The Guardians or Ant-Man. Yeah, and maybe he's upset he didn't get to make them all hard R too.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 13, 2017 16:46:08 GMT
Now you see how the MCU is in a no-win scenario with some people? It can be in a winnable position. Make a good R rated Blade movie or Ghost Rider movie to balance out the more light hearted PG-13 movies and you'd get the best of both whilst having variety to boot. They want R rated movies, not R rated movies out of characters that don't warrant them like Thor. Well Deadpool was a D Lister too and they made the Right rated movie work well for him so you never now, they could do it again with Multiple Man. Can't knock it till we see how it turns out. James Franco just did that Disaster Artist which released to critical acclaim after all. Maybe but he's not saying that only R rated movies are good.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 13, 2017 17:03:38 GMT
It can be in a winnable position. Make a good R rated Blade movie or Ghost Rider movie to balance out the more light hearted PG-13 movies and you'd get the best of both whilst having variety to boot. Eh, something tells me that there won't be satisfaction until it's all R Rated. IE, Ragnarok is exactly the same except we see Fenrir eating people for no reason and the zombie Asgardians aren't reanimated skeletons but decomposing corpses dripping with blood for the sake of it. Look at Wonder Woman, it was set in WWI but wasn't rated R and it was a success. They also think if Logan is ever put back, he should only be R rated too...despite him only having ONE R rated film to his name out of all his appearances. Yeah but that wasn't his usual Sex fest. He thinks that Disney is incapable of making a good X-Men story despite them probably being the same rating as Fox gave them.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 13, 2017 17:11:34 GMT
Eh, something tells me that there won't be satisfaction until it's all R Rated. That doesn't matter, that's just regarding a few people on a message board, that's worthless. Wonder Woman doesn't require a R rated movie. They're supposedly making a Feather role, that could probably do with being R rated though. Yeah that makes sense. After seeing him stab people in the skull and cut off limbs he'd be kind of a step backwards if we go back to him swiping his claw and then them falling down without any blood. Well maybe Multiple Man might not be then, we won't know until we see a trailer.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 13, 2017 17:19:18 GMT
That doesn't matter, that's just regarding a few people on a message board, that's worthless. But they're hardly alone in this regard, otherwise there wouldn't be such an uproar over the whole "will Disney make R rated stuff with Fox's properties or not?" But it was in WWI, one of the bloodiest wars ever. ? Unfamiliar. And if Fox did the same thing with having present day movies where he's back to the way he was in all the OTHER X-Men films, no one would care. It's only Disney that gets this stink eye. I think the whole thing is a stupid idea, and odds are Franco had an idea of having an orgy with clones of himself while high on coke one night.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 13, 2017 17:37:22 GMT
"But they're hardly alone in this regard, otherwise there wouldn't be such an uproar over the whole "will Disney make R rated stuff with Fox's properties or not?" There's not really an uproar, more of a curiosity of what they will do with the properties in the future. Well Captain America was set in WW2 and that also didn't need to be R rated. People are talking about the characters that call for it is all, Deadshot, Deadpool, Death Stroke, Punisher, Ghost Rider, Blade etc. Not Superman or Spider-man. Death Stroke, not Feather. Dunno how it autocorrected it to that. If he were in an X-men movie then people would understand it because an X-men movie shouldn't be rated R in the first place. If they made another Wolverine movie though and it was PG-13 then people wouldn't like that at all. Same with if they ever made that mistake with Deadpool.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Dec 13, 2017 19:16:08 GMT
I think it's more that you look at everything that happens in the MCU as happening for a laugh because it is the MCU. They can have a completely serious movie and you'd still say that the whole movie had one joke after the other. No. I liked phase 1 movies but they made them more lighthearted and forcibly comedic as time went on. Its a shame because we arent going to see that style and tone of movies anymore such as Raimis spiderman and Foxs Xmen which will be/are both under Disney. And add Nolans style of Batman movies to that list too since the DCEU now is just trying to immitate MCU with their own twist of the cheesey formula. All superhero movies post 2018 will have generally the same look, feel and taste. No more true variety, just the same assembly line super polished safe products one after the other.
|
|
|
Post by lukelovesfilm34 on Dec 14, 2017 9:46:00 GMT
I don't care how you spin. A single company monopolizing anything is bad. I want choices. I want to know that I'm going to see a Disney film or a Fox film or a Universal or Warner Bros film. I want variety and choice. That is freedom. I also don't like the attitude Disney has toward other companies and their products. Look at the recent Blu-ray releases of the OT. They erased the 20th Century Fox logo. They erased movie history in essence. They won't honor movie history like Fox has by releasing MGM movies complete with the MGM logo. They'll erase the Fox logo from every release. And that is seriously fucked up.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 14, 2017 12:47:31 GMT
I don't care how you spin. A single company monopolizing anything is bad. I want choices. I want to know that I'm going to see a Disney film or a Fox film or a Universal or Warner Bros film. I want variety and choice. That is freedom. I also don't like the attitude Disney has toward other companies and their products. Look at the recent Blu-ray releases of the OT. They erased the 20th Century Fox logo. They erased movie history in essence. They won't honor movie history like Fox has by releasing MGM movies complete with the MGM logo. They'll erase the Fox logo from every release. And that is seriously fucked up. If Disney had made those movies and then Fox bought them and did the exact same thing erasing Disney's logo you wouldn't be complaining.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 14, 2017 12:51:34 GMT
There's not really an uproar, more of a curiosity of what they will do with the properties in the future. And there's always a negative bent to it. No one is curious as to how Disney would do the X-Men in an open-minded way, they're mainly all "Kiss R-Rated X-Men goodbye!" What, you haven't heard about how horrible the movie was for not being your typical jingoistic pro-America anti-everyone else WWII piece? If they complain about how movies like New Mutants wouldn't be rated R under Disney, then they clearly mean that they want to apply the R rating to everyone in the MCU. So they have a double standard. If Logan is in a Fox X-Men movie then it's okay to be PG but if he's on his own he has to be Hard R? Why aren't they saying that the X-Men should also be hard R?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 14, 2017 12:52:40 GMT
And add Nolans style of Batman movies to that list too since the DCEU now is just trying to immitate MCU with their own twist of the cheesey formula. That's because they TRIED Nolan's way, but realized his way doesn't work with actual superheroes.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 14, 2017 13:19:42 GMT
And add Nolans style of Batman movies to that list too since the DCEU now is just trying to immitate MCU with their own twist of the cheesey formula. That's because they TRIED Nolan's way, but realized his way doesn't work with actual superheroes. For that matter, TDK is the only Nolan Batman movie anyone other than comic book fans ever talks about. Begins didn't exactly do gangbusters at the BO. Ledger's iconic performance made TDK a cinema classic (even though for my money it's fantastic in all aspects, but I could talk about that all day and that's not the point I'm making here). TDKR was a disaster in my opinion, and I'd give BB and TDK an 8 or 9/10. My point is comic fans talk about Nolan's Batman trilogy raising the bar when really it's just TDK, and even then most of the greatness of that flick is lost on casual moviegoers. As I've mentioned before, WB/DC took the wrong lessons from TDK and for years they tried to replicate that formula in their other flicks. But that formula only works with Batman & Joker. That character dynamic is naturally predisposed for high drama and the complexities the human condition. It doesn't work with space gods and...whatever they were trying to do with Luthor. It could work with Batman and Superman, but you need focus to execute that properly and WB was in a rush, so... Anyway, as a huge fan of Nolan and of BB & TDK, I always think it's strange that people hold up the Batman trilogy as the pinnacle of superhero filmmaking when audiences, by and large, only reacted to a few aspects of one of those films in particular. And it wasn't simply because it was 'dark & gritty.'
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 14, 2017 13:50:52 GMT
As I've mentioned before, WB/DC took the wrong lessons from TDK and for years they tried to replicate that formula in their other flicks. But that formula only works with Batman & Joker. And Hell, TDK only got THAT to work by making Joker omnipotent and omniscient.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Dec 14, 2017 14:13:57 GMT
As I've mentioned before, WB/DC took the wrong lessons from TDK and for years they tried to replicate that formula in their other flicks. But that formula only works with Batman & Joker. And Hell, TDK only got THAT to work by making Joker omnipotent and omniscient. I've seen that complaint a lot and I really never saw it that way. The Joker's plan was chaos. That isn't a difficult plan to execute. I never saw it as things always going his way, I saw it as him altering his plan when it was necessary and setting up contingencies. People die for his shits and giggles either way. He fired a rocket at Harvey and then told Batman he wasn't trying to kill him. He switched the addresses with Harvey and Rachel because he wanted to see where Batman would go. Either way Batman fails and somebody dies. Joker wins. Gordon says Joker wanted to be put in lockup but did he really need to be there to phone in that bomb and then grab Lau? Joker kills Lau, burns the money and kills gangsters so Lau was irrelevant anyway. Joker didn't need him, he killed him because it was fun. Joker gives multiple origin stories. He doesn't care if the world understands him, he doesn't want anything from anyone. He just wants chaos, and he gets it. Watch the evening news, it isn't that hard to generate chaos.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Dec 14, 2017 14:18:41 GMT
So he thinks that the only way a film can be "for adults" is if they kill everyone and be loaded with blood and cursing. That's some adolescents' idea of "Maturity". That definitely describes some of the trolls on this board, but that isn't what he's saying here. He's saying you have more creative freedom when you aren't worried about selling toys. There are certain guidelines you have to follow if you want to market the film to children. It all goes back to McDonalds getting angry about Batman Returns because they thought Happy Meal toys shouldn't feature creepy characters who kill and sexually assault people (Penguin). It's odd, because they made a Friday the 13th NES game in the 80s which was definitely marketed to kids, but I have to say that would never happen today. The Winter Soldier is an example of a CBM for adults, so it can be done and done very well. But there's no way Disney makes Logan or Deadpool, and that's the real issue. Those films simply would not exist if every film had to follow some studio mandate regarding marketing to the widest possible audience. He understands all of this. He's just acting like a disingenuous dickhead because it's all he knows how to do. His empty, sad repetitive little schtick.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 14, 2017 14:24:41 GMT
And Hell, TDK only got THAT to work by making Joker omnipotent and omniscient. I've seen that complaint a lot and I really never saw it that way. He always was in total control, he always killed who he wanted to kill no matter how secure and guarded they were, he always had bombs in the right place, people always did exactly as he ordered them or as he predicted, etc. It's why I loved the first season of the Following so much, it deconstructed this type of character and pointed out how schemes like his could fall apart so easily.
|
|