|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 30, 2018 21:48:25 GMT
1. It was shoehorned in because there was no buildup to Venom showing up at all. He just came down in a meteor that happened to be right near Spider-Man, and that was it. If they had properly set up Venom’s appearance in the movie (as in, making the movie revolve around him) it wouldn’t have been a problem. Again, no one has complained about Venom for being unrealistic. That’s an absolutely ridiculous belief to have. You need to stop coming up with excuses for why things you don’t like get praised, and why things you like don’t. People didn’t praise TDK because Heath Ledger died, people didn’t praise Logan because Wolverine died, and people didn’t hate because Venom was unrealistic. 2. Plenty of people have praised that scene. Sandman as a character was not what people took issue with for the movie. People took issue with the way he retconned Uncle Ben’s death, but the character himself was not viewed as one of the weak links of the film. Also, if they had planned this whole thing earlier, it wouldn’t have been seen as dumb. The problem was that they didn’t plan it out earlier. They just decided to establish that so that Peter would have a reason to want to kill Sandman as a way of showing how the symbiote was affecting him. It’s because of Nolan that the first film in the MCU turned out the way it did. It’s because of Nolan that the villain in BP has been compared to Heath Ledger’s Joker by the people involved with the film. Nolan didn’t hurt the genre at all. End of story. Are we done here? 1) Venom would feel shoehorned in no matter HOW he was introduced, because to the audience the sheer idea of the new villain being some kind of space alien just didn't fit what the previous movies had established as a setting. He was always going to feel out of place even if the whole movie was about him. The only way he'd fit the "grounded" feel they went for would be if he wasn't an alien/human hybrid, but Brock just getting bitten by another genetic spider. It IS absolutely ridiculous, but that's how badly CBMs that tried to not be "grounded" were being discriminated against back then. Until the MCU worked very hard to get people to accept that kind of stuff while Nolan was working very hard to advocate the stance that you should be ashamed of that kind of stuff. 2) Oh, his character most definitely WAS seen as a weak link. They thought practically everything about him was contrived and dumb, from his motivations to his origins to his powers, to his place in the overall plot. They didn't like him doing stuff for his daughter, they didn't like him being connected to Peter, they didn't like him teaming up with Venom at the end, they didn't like how he was portrayed sympathetically instead of just being some powered up thug, etc. Of course, Vulture in Homecoming was doing stuff for HIS family and had a connection to Peter but no one cared there. Because, even in the over-the-top setting of the MCU, he wasn't some powered human but a normal guy in a exo-suit. For all we know, those saying that Killmonger will be like Joker are just saying that for free publicity and we'll have to wait and see what he's like. And it might be for that same reason Favreau said that about Nolan as well, because I don't see much of Nolan in Iron Man. If there was, then the movie would've really been all about Obadiah Stane with Tony having barely any character. Everything you’re saying is absolutely baseless. You have offered zero proof to suggest that people disliked SM3 for being “unrealistic”, or that people disliked Sandman as a character, and even less proof to suggest Nolan created some kind mentality that CBMs are something to be ashamed of(which is especially stupid because the first two Sam Raimi films came out before any of the Nolan Batman movies). The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies were never realistic and were never expected to be realistic, and the first two Spider-Man movies were still consistently praised despite the utter lack of realism, and the fact that they were even campier than anything in the MCU. Again, sentient metal tentacles that control people’s minds, and artificial suns are not “grounded”. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 30, 2018 22:00:37 GMT
Pointless arguing with samhd, hes stuck in a delusional mindset that has its own illogical rules that dont relate to reality.
Spiderman 3 bombed because, like Xmen 3, the film had too many subplots/villains crammed in, there was little emotion or drama that made the first 2 entries great and the story is rushed in both.
Nothing to do with this grounded nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 22:21:57 GMT
Everything you’re saying is absolutely baseless. You have offered zero proof to suggest that people disliked SM3 for being “unrealistic”, or that people disliked Sandman as a character, Go read the negative reviews, those two will pop up in virtually every one of them. Probably how they ruined what should've been a movie entirely about Peter fighting Harry, and how Sand Monsters and Alien Slime Creatures have no place in Raimi's Spider-World. Not all CBMs, just the ones that weren't afraid to do stuff about magic, ancient relics, alien invasions, wacky uses of superpowers, characters crossing over outside of their own movies, etc. Basically, to a Nolanite every single thing about every MCU movie is wrong and ruining the CBM genre. Even if that was Raimi's intention, they still come off as "grounded". He'd NEVER have given us an alien like Venom if it wasn't something forced on him. Let me put it this way, if Sandman had been the villain in SM2 instead of Doc Ock, the only villain, that movie wouldn't be seen as any good. And if he'd been the villain in the first one there'd be no sequels at all because the audience would've found him too unbelievable. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 22:23:40 GMT
Spiderman 3 bombed because, like Xmen 3, the film had too many subplots/villains crammed in And those villains were considered too unbelievable even for Sam Raimi. It's got everything to do with it. Some audiencegoers are just inherently biased against actual comic book elements. Just look at Summers8. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 30, 2018 22:35:12 GMT
And those villains were considered too unbelievable even for Sam Raimi. If they focused on just one and gave them more development the film would have been fine. But they strayed away from the first 2 films formula and tried to cram too much in. And yeah some people might have thought "a sand monster AND a alien symbiot in the same film, how ludicrous" which is why they should have focused on 1. Having both is sonewhat jumping the shark for believability. Summers8 just dislikes the MCU for its childish lighthearted formulaic no stakes low brow humour product, not for the "wondrous elements ". And hes right. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 22:49:39 GMT
If they focused on just one and gave them more development the film would have been fine. I sincerely doubt that if Sandman had been the villain in the first Spidey film that there'd even have been sequels. Because such a villain would've been too much for audiences to accept and the movie would've bombed. SM3 didn't have more subplots in it than SM2 did. You're proving my stance on the audience not being accepting of that kind of stuff pre-MCU is correct. Even if they had just used Venom alone the idea would be "Spider-Man fighting some kind of alien thing? How ridiculous." Hell, look at Guardians of the Galaxy. It have us a Cyborg, and Alien Warlord and a Mad Titan as villains and no one complained it was too much. Why? Because the MCU worked hard to get us to accept that kind of stuff. Existing at all. He hates actual comic elements on-screen. He's outright admitted he dislikes costumes and stuff like outer space and other planets and people using magic and stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 30, 2018 23:23:56 GMT
I sincerely doubt that if Sandman had been the villain in the first Spidey film that there'd even have been sequels. Because such a villain would've been too much for audiences to accept and the movie would've bombed. Thats why you dont go so "out there" in your first film if its an earth based film. You go with the safe option first to slowly blood the audience into the universe the film series is trying to create. Its why ironman 1 and cap 1 had grounded story and villains. Thor 1 practically takes place on earth. GotG isnt released until 6 years after the first film. Same reason Sandman wouldnt have worked as the opening villain. ive not seen him say that. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 30, 2018 23:32:56 GMT
Thats why you dont go so "out there" in your first film if its an earth based film. You mean like Dr Strange did by not using Dormammu? Oh wait... Iron Man, yes. But Cap 1 had a Nazi Super-Soldier find a leftover artifact from a race of Gods to use as a weapon. But doesn't shy away from his origins and other worlds. OR...audiences back in 2002-2007 just couldn't handle a character like that. At all. Because the setting Raimi created just had no place for characters like Venom or Sandman. No matter HOW Venom was introduced, 1st film 2nd film or 3rd film...he was always going to feel shoehorned. At least, if you want to keep him as an alien. If Raimi had just thrown out all the alien stuff and have Venom just be Eddie Brock getting bit by another Genetic Spider he'd have been fine doing it that way. Even if it meant throwing out everything wondrous about the character to begin with. I have, he goes on about how the X-Men not having proper costumes or acting like a real team makes them "Serious" and "Down to Earth" while having costumes would destroy all that. And how dumb it would be to have magic and aliens and how that would somehow make the mutants look silly, because now there'd be more to the world than Mutants and the latest Government Program against Mutants. He also says he dislikes how the villains aren't always the true focus of the movie and that they should be the core of everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Jan 30, 2018 23:42:22 GMT
Is formersamhmd still trying to argue that this was a petty nom? |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 31, 2018 5:41:41 GMT
Everything you’re saying is absolutely baseless. You have offered zero proof to suggest that people disliked SM3 for being “unrealistic”, or that people disliked Sandman as a character, Go read the negative reviews, those two will pop up in virtually every one of them. Probably how they ruined what should've been a movie entirely about Peter fighting Harry, and how Sand Monsters and Alien Slime Creatures have no place in Raimi's Spider-World. Not all CBMs, just the ones that weren't afraid to do stuff about magic, ancient relics, alien invasions, wacky uses of superpowers, characters crossing over outside of their own movies, etc. Basically, to a Nolanite every single thing about every MCU movie is wrong and ruining the CBM genre. Even if that was Raimi's intention, they still come off as "grounded". He'd NEVER have given us an alien like Venom if it wasn't something forced on him. Let me put it this way, if Sandman had been the villain in SM2 instead of Doc Ock, the only villain, that movie wouldn't be seen as any good. And if he'd been the villain in the first one there'd be no sequels at all because the audience would've found him too unbelievable. Those two aren’t brought up for being “unrealistic”. They (mostly Venom) were brought up for how poorly they (again, mostly Venom) were used in the story. Also, please stop going on about Nolan’s movies being “afraid to do whacky stuff”. His movies were faithful to the comics. They were simply Nolan’s personal interpretation of them. They weren’t ashamed of the source material. They were simply doing their own spin on the source material. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 31, 2018 12:02:38 GMT
Go read the negative reviews, those two will pop up in virtually every one of them. Probably how they ruined what should've been a movie entirely about Peter fighting Harry, and how Sand Monsters and Alien Slime Creatures have no place in Raimi's Spider-World. Not all CBMs, just the ones that weren't afraid to do stuff about magic, ancient relics, alien invasions, wacky uses of superpowers, characters crossing over outside of their own movies, etc. Basically, to a Nolanite every single thing about every MCU movie is wrong and ruining the CBM genre. Even if that was Raimi's intention, they still come off as "grounded". He'd NEVER have given us an alien like Venom if it wasn't something forced on him. Let me put it this way, if Sandman had been the villain in SM2 instead of Doc Ock, the only villain, that movie wouldn't be seen as any good. And if he'd been the villain in the first one there'd be no sequels at all because the audience would've found him too unbelievable. Those two aren’t brought up for being “unrealistic”. They (mostly Venom) were brought up for how poorly they (again, mostly Venom) were used in the story. Also, please stop going on about Nolan’s movies being “afraid to do whacky stuff”. His movies were faithful to the comics. They were simply Nolan’s personal interpretation of them. They weren’t ashamed of the source material. They were simply doing their own spin on the source material. And I'm saying that the idea they were used poorly IS because they're too unbelievable for Raimi's movies. No matter how it was done, Venom was always going to feel out of place because a space alien just doesn't work in a "grounded" setting. Nolan's way spawned a fanbase that hate any CBMs that aren't "grounded" and "realistic". Even if that isn't what Nolan intended. To this day, fans of CBMs that aren't afraid to embrace the over-the-top nature of comics have to put up with people who hate every little thing about every MCU movie because they aren't "grounded". |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 31, 2018 18:13:05 GMT
Those two aren’t brought up for being “unrealistic”. They (mostly Venom) were brought up for how poorly they (again, mostly Venom) were used in the story. Also, please stop going on about Nolan’s movies being “afraid to do whacky stuff”. His movies were faithful to the comics. They were simply Nolan’s personal interpretation of them. They weren’t ashamed of the source material. They were simply doing their own spin on the source material. And I'm saying that the idea they were used poorly IS because they're too unbelievable for Raimi's movies. No matter how it was done, Venom was always going to feel out of place because a space alien just doesn't work in a "grounded" setting. Nolan's way spawned a fanbase that hate any CBMs that aren't "grounded" and "realistic". Even if that isn't what Nolan intended. To this day, fans of CBMs that aren't afraid to embrace the over-the-top nature of comics have to put up with people who hate every little thing about every MCU movie because they aren't "grounded". Let’s put it this way, Sandman was always intended to be in the film, and had Raimi not been forced to shoehorn in Venom, I would imagine that the film would’ve been better received. As it stands, virtually no one has complained that Venom was too unbelievable for the film. The problem with Venom was that he was a character who Raimi never wanted to include in the movie to begin with. I’m pretty sure the “fanbase” you’re referring to isn’t an entire collection of people who think that CBMs should be realistic. It’s a small community of people who bash the MCU for being “kiddie” as in, they don’t like that the MCU is full of jokes and goofy moments. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 31, 2018 18:44:13 GMT
Let’s put it this way, Sandman was always intended to be in the film, and had Raimi not been forced to shoehorn in Venom, I would imagine that the film would’ve been better received. Maybe, but I'm sure that there'd still be complaints that Harry should've been the main villain and a guy made of Sand was too hard to believe in comparison. I spoke to people all the time on the old IMDB forum and others about how a space alien just didn't work compared to the more Silver-Age type setting Raimi made. And odds are, if Raimi had WANTED to put Venom in he wouldn't have made him a space alien or a symbiote. He'd just have had Eddie Brock get bit by another genetic spider and ditch all the outer space stuff altogether. I've had chats with Anti-MCU folks who hated how the Avengers were fighting aliens and how ridiculous it was and how it would've been cooler to have them fighting human soldiers or gangsters or something like that. Cause it's more "realistic". THAT is due to Nolan. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 31, 2018 19:22:13 GMT
Let’s put it this way, Sandman was always intended to be in the film, and had Raimi not been forced to shoehorn in Venom, I would imagine that the film would’ve been better received. Maybe, but I'm sure that there'd still be complaints that Harry should've been the main villain and a guy made of Sand was too hard to believe in comparison. I spoke to people all the time on the old IMDB forum and others about how a space alien just didn't work compared to the more Silver-Age type setting Raimi made. And odds are, if Raimi had WANTED to put Venom in he wouldn't have made him a space alien or a symbiote. He'd just have had Eddie Brock get bit by another genetic spider and ditch all the outer space stuff altogether. I've had chats with Anti-MCU folks who hated how the Avengers were fighting aliens and how ridiculous it was and how it would've been cooler to have them fighting human soldiers or gangsters or something like that. Cause it's more "realistic". THAT is due to Nolan. If Raimi didn’t want to make Venom an alien, he wouldn’t have done so at all. There is no large number of people who think that CBMs need to be “grounded”. Neither DC nor Marvel films are like that. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 31, 2018 19:28:30 GMT
Maybe, but I'm sure that there'd still be complaints that Harry should've been the main villain and a guy made of Sand was too hard to believe in comparison. I spoke to people all the time on the old IMDB forum and others about how a space alien just didn't work compared to the more Silver-Age type setting Raimi made. And odds are, if Raimi had WANTED to put Venom in he wouldn't have made him a space alien or a symbiote. He'd just have had Eddie Brock get bit by another genetic spider and ditch all the outer space stuff altogether. I've had chats with Anti-MCU folks who hated how the Avengers were fighting aliens and how ridiculous it was and how it would've been cooler to have them fighting human soldiers or gangsters or something like that. Cause it's more "realistic". THAT is due to Nolan. If Raimi didn’t want to make Venom an alien, he wouldn’t have done so at all. There is no large number of people who think that CBMs need to be “grounded”. Neither DC nor Marvel films are like that. He was forced to include him, remember? Odds are, if he'd wanted to do it (and thus, been allowed to do it HIS way) he'd have stripped Venom of all the outer space stuff and try to 'ground' him so he'd be more like Ock or the Goblin.
IE, have Brock get bit by another spider. Toss out the whole symbiote thing entirely because it didn't "fit".
The DCEU films have tried to be more "grounded", to limited success. The FoX-Men movies have thrived on it, and they half-assed Apocalypse because they weren't comfortable with it not being as grounded as prior films.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Jan 31, 2018 19:33:09 GMT
If Raimi didn’t want to make Venom an alien, he wouldn’t have done so at all. There is no large number of people who think that CBMs need to be “grounded”. Neither DC nor Marvel films are like that. He was forced to include him, remember? Odds are, if he'd wanted to do it (and thus, been allowed to do it HIS way) he'd have stripped Venom of all the outer space stuff and try to 'ground' him so he'd be more like Ock or the Goblin.
IE, have Brock get bit by another spider. Toss out the whole symbiote thing entirely because it didn't "fit".
The DCEU films have tried to be more "grounded", to limited success. The FoX-Men movies have thrived on it, and they half-assed Apocalypse because they weren't comfortable with it not being as grounded as prior films.
I highly doubt the studio insisted that Venom be an alien. All they would’ve cared about would be that Venom would be in the movie. You have no proof for this idea Raimi would’ve given him the same backstory as Spider-Man. MoS involved an alien invasion that nearly destroyed the entire planet, SS involved a witch trying to wipe out the human race, and WW involved Greek Gods as part of its setting. None of that strikes me as “grounded”. Look, we can keep going at this forever, but the fact of the matter is that the MCU didn’t invent the idea of CBMs being silly and lighthearted, Nolan didn’t nearly destroy the genre, and Logan’s Oscar nomination is because the Academy thought it was a film worth nominating. That’s all. I’m done arguing here. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Feb 1, 2018 23:46:04 GMT
Stewart shoulda got a supporting actor nom.
|
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Feb 3, 2018 17:37:45 GMT
I would consider Special Effects a major category Special Effects isn't a major awards category. Special Effects is only a minor, technical category. The major awards categories are for acting, directing, producing, and writing. You must not think Jurassic Park is a good movie, because that's considered a cinematic achievement in special effects for literally bringing dinosaurs alive on the big screen. When you have a movie that has CGI, special effects is what helps move the story along. Justice League is an example of that not working because of shitty CGI. I win. You lose, bitch |
|
