|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 6, 2018 22:25:28 GMT
Then who should’ve made ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2’, may I ask? Let me guess. Stephenie Meyer? the first gotg movie was A proud rebirth of the Space Opera Genre, after the Star Wars prequels nearly did the genre in. X-Men could have easily led the pack with Starjammers, but they were too incompetent to try.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 6, 2018 22:28:27 GMT
Logan's success was unique. Mmmm, it was because critics and audiences chose to go easy on Jackmans' Swan Song. Nope, it was predictable from start to finish. They won't sell out and be creatively bankrupt, if that's what you mean. Movies ashamed of themselves, more like it. Wonderful rebirth of the Space Opera genre. Not as good as the first, but still great. If you're ashamed of comics.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 6, 2018 23:08:12 GMT
Logan's success was unique. Mmmm, it was because critics and audiences chose to go easy on Jackmans' Swan Song. Nope, it was predictable from start to finish. They won't sell out and be creatively bankrupt, if that's what you mean. Movies ashamed of themselves, more like it. Wonderful rebirth of the Space Opera genre. Not as good as the first, but still great. If you're ashamed of comics. You forgot to work in "grounded" and "artificial boosters." You're getting sloppy.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 7, 2018 1:17:05 GMT
I'm an MCU fan and I'm very happy for Logan's success - it's a great movie - its people like you who are always trying to put MCU fans down, tell them they're wrong for enjoying movies like GOTG Vol. 2 or Spider-Man: Homecoming and try to pass yourself off as a "true" fan of the comics when you get so much wrong that makes people so annoyed with you. This kind of attitude is why the word "overrated" comes into play...You have no one to blame but yourself and your pretentious attitude. Logan's success was unique. its was a ground breaking land mark movie that has gone on to archive the highest level of recognition all across the boards for pure artistic valor in film. No mcu movie will ever get to that level. not ever. only tdk got there. so mcu fans like thatguy have to lie about Logan. we understand. I don't need to lie because I was smart enough to be fans of movies with substance (logan, tdk, x2, bb) than the hype. (thor, homecommng, gotg) The first gotg was a bad movie if we take it seriously and look at it with intellect. the second was....unforgivable. Homecoming is way below Spiderman 1 and Spiderman 2.it suffers from it been over Disneyfied. Aside from Heath Ledger for Best Supporting Actor every category The Dark Knight was up for was for technical qualities, not Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Director or Best Picture. It was not the first time a comic book movie was nominated for anything outside of technical categories by the Academy, either - Al Pacino was nominated for Best Supporting for Dick Tracy in 1991. Even Logan's Oscar nomination is not anything too new, either - A History of Violence, also based on a comic book, was nominated for the same award in 2006. The first GOTG is widely considered a very good movie by most and one of Marvel's best, and a certain Steven Spielberg - who you like to bring up every once in a while, thinks its pretty well done himself. Define "Disneyfied", please.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 7, 2018 1:33:20 GMT
Logan's success was unique. its was a ground breaking land mark movie that has gone on to archive the highest level of recognition all across the boards for pure artistic valor in film. No mcu movie will ever get to that level. not ever. only tdk got there. so mcu fans like thatguy have to lie about Logan. we understand. I don't need to lie because I was smart enough to be fans of movies with substance (logan, tdk, x2, bb) than the hype. (thor, homecommng, gotg) The first gotg was a bad movie if we take it seriously and look at it with intellect. the second was....unforgivable. Homecoming is way below Spiderman 1 and Spiderman 2.it suffers from it been over Disneyfied. Aside from Heath Ledger for Best Supporting Actor every category The Dark Knight was up for was for technical qualities, not Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Director or Best Picture. It was not the first time a comic book movie was nominated for anything outside of technical categories by the Academy, either - Al Pacino was nominated for Best Supporting for Dick Tracy in 1991. Even Logan's Oscar nomination is not anything too new, either - A History of Violence, also based on a comic book, was nominated for the same award in 2006. The first GOTG is widely considered a very good movie by most and one of Marvel's best, and a certain Steven Spielberg - who you like to bring up every once in a while, thinks its pretty well done himself. Define "Disneyfied", please. Basically, it's when characters wear costumes and the story isn't "grounded" and actually has wondrous comic booky elements to it. And the villains aren't the stars of the show, totally overshadowing the heroes.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 7, 2018 4:55:34 GMT
Aside from Heath Ledger for Best Supporting Actor every category The Dark Knight was up for was for technical qualities, not Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Director or Best Picture. It was not the first time a comic book movie was nominated for anything outside of technical categories by the Academy, either - Al Pacino was nominated for Best Supporting for Dick Tracy in 1991. Even Logan's Oscar nomination is not anything too new, either - A History of Violence, also based on a comic book, was nominated for the same award in 2006. The first GOTG is widely considered a very good movie by most and one of Marvel's best, and a certain Steven Spielberg - who you like to bring up every once in a while, thinks its pretty well done himself. Define "Disneyfied", please. Basically, it's when characters wear costumes and the story isn't " grounded" and actually has wondrous comic booky elements to it. And the villains aren't the stars of the show, totally overshadowing the heroes. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 7, 2018 6:48:02 GMT
Logan's success was unique. its was a ground breaking land mark movie that has gone on to archive the highest level of recognition all across the boards for pure artistic valor in film. No mcu movie will ever get to that level. not ever. only tdk got there. so mcu fans like thatguy have to lie about Logan. we understand. I don't need to lie because I was smart enough to be fans of movies with substance (logan, tdk, x2, bb) than the hype. (thor, homecommng, gotg) The first gotg was a bad movie if we take it seriously and look at it with intellect. the second was....unforgivable. Homecoming is way below Spiderman 1 and Spiderman 2.it suffers from it been over Disneyfied. Aside from Heath Ledger for Best Supporting Actor every category The Dark Knight was up for was for technical qualities, not Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Director or Best Picture. It was not the first time a comic book movie was nominated for anything outside of technical categories by the Academy, either - Al Pacino was nominated for Best Supporting for Dick Tracy in 1991. Even Logan's Oscar nomination is not anything too new, either - A History of Violence, also based on a comic book, was nominated for the same award in 2006. The first GOTG is widely considered a very good movie by most and one of Marvel's best, and a certain Steven Spielberg - who you like to bring up every once in a while, thinks its pretty well done himself. Define "Disneyfied", please. superhero movies. a history of violence is not one. the first gotg is a good movie if we don't use our heads. the best mcu movie to date by the majority is winter solider. a film that DOFP easily surpassed in art at the time of release. Spielberg praised the cockiness of gotg and so did bryan singer then a year later Spielberg said the genre will die out like westerns because of mcu movies.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Feb 7, 2018 8:26:53 GMT
Aside from Heath Ledger for Best Supporting Actor every category The Dark Knight was up for was for technical qualities, not Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Director or Best Picture. It was not the first time a comic book movie was nominated for anything outside of technical categories by the Academy, either - Al Pacino was nominated for Best Supporting for Dick Tracy in 1991. Even Logan's Oscar nomination is not anything too new, either - A History of Violence, also based on a comic book, was nominated for the same award in 2006. The first GOTG is widely considered a very good movie by most and one of Marvel's best, and a certain Steven Spielberg - who you like to bring up every once in a while, thinks its pretty well done himself. Define "Disneyfied", please. superhero movies. a history of violence is not one. the first gotg is a good movie if we don't use our heads. the best mcu movie to date by the majority is winter solider. a film that DOFP easily surpassed in art at the time of release. Spielberg praised the cockiness of gotg and so did bryan singer then a year later Spielberg said the genre will die out like westerns because of mcu movies. Very well. The Incredibles, a superhero movie, won Best Animated Feature in 2005, in addition to being nominated for Best Writing. Oh, wait doesn't count because it was an original product? OK then Big Hero 6, another superhero film which *was based* on a Marvel comic book and was totally done by Disney and not by Marvel Studios, won for Best Animated Feature in 2015. No tough competition you'll say next? It went up against How to Train Your Dragon 2, Son of the Sea, The Boxtrolls, and Princess Kaguya. If anything, Logan's Best Adapted Screenplay nomination is a good thing for Marvel and Disney rather than a "see, THAT is how its done!" lecture you make it out to be. 1, because Marvel now knows the Academy isn't too biased towards films based on their properties and 2, Disney has more reason to not let go of Fox to another bidder no matter the price. I used my head, and I very much enjoyed the first GOTG and think it's more than a good movie, its a great one. DOFP, while pretty good, was essentially a way to erase the bad taste from The Last Stand and X-Men Origins from people's mouths and try to fix the sloppy continuity the past films had trouble maintaining as they went along. Winter Soldier actually maintained continuity from the other MCU films and turned the tables on its whole establishment with its Hydra twist. On a technical level, DOFP has a stronger color palate but its frame rate and shutter speed give the movement from the actors and the action set pieces a really blurry look that makes it feel like a soap opera of sorts. WS on the other hand used better camera settings that allowed more seamless looking action sequences without any distracting blurs that took you out of the story. Singer also has some issues when handling large scale scenes - this is why most of his movies are set in smaller environments. The way he approaches them doesn't make you feel you're really there and the stage-y-ness comes off pretty obvious to the viewer. The Russos blended visual effects and real environments better and captured scope better as well in WS and so on in Civil War and appear to do so again in Infinity War. Spielberg's actual quote is this - And Spielberg said that on superhero movies in 2015, his quote on GOTG is from a year later. Spielberg also was talking about superhero movies IN GENERAL in his 2015 statement, not MCU specifically. He referring to all them from your Avengers to your Dark Knights to your Logans.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 7, 2018 10:46:40 GMT
WS on the other hand used better camera settings that allowed more seamless looking action sequences without any distracting blurs that took you out of the story. The blur was the lazy shaky cam effect and extreme close ups that made it impossible to see what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 7, 2018 11:33:24 GMT
WS on the other hand used better camera settings that allowed more seamless looking action sequences without any distracting blurs that took you out of the story. The blur was the lazy shaky cam effect and extreme close ups that made it impossible to see what was going on. That was the point.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Feb 7, 2018 13:19:20 GMT
superhero movies. a history of violence is not one. the first gotg is a good movie if we don't use our heads. the best mcu movie to date by the majority is winter solider. a film that DOFP easily surpassed in art at the time of release. Spielberg praised the cockiness of gotg and so did bryan singer then a year later Spielberg said the genre will die out like westerns because of mcu movies. Very well. The Incredibles, a superhero movie, won Best Animated Feature in 2005, in addition to being nominated for Best Writing. Oh, wait doesn't count because it was an original product? OK then Big Hero 6, another superhero film which *was based* on a Marvel comic book and was totally done by Disney and not by Marvel Studios, won for Best Animated Feature in 2015. No tough competition you'll say next? It went up against How to Train Your Dragon 2, Son of the Sea, The Boxtrolls, and Princess Kaguya. If anything, Logan's Best Adapted Screenplay nomination is a good thing for Marvel and Disney rather than a "see, THAT is how its done!" lecture you make it out to be. 1, because Marvel now knows the Academy isn't too biased towards films based on their properties and 2, Disney has more reason to not let go of Fox to another bidder no matter the price. I used my head, and I very much enjoyed the first GOTG and think it's more than a good movie, its a great one. DOFP, while pretty good, was essentially a way to erase the bad taste from The Last Stand and X-Men Origins from people's mouths and try to fix the sloppy continuity the past films had trouble maintaining as they went along. Winter Soldier actually maintained continuity from the other MCU films and turned the tables on its whole establishment with its Hydra twist. On a technical level, DOFP has a stronger color palate but its frame rate and shutter speed give the movement from the actors and the action set pieces a really blurry look that makes it feel like a soap opera of sorts. WS on the other hand used better camera settings that allowed more seamless looking action sequences without any distracting blurs that took you out of the story. Singer also has some issues when handling large scale scenes - this is why most of his movies are set in smaller environments. The way he approaches them doesn't make you feel you're really there and the stage-y-ness comes off pretty obvious to the viewer. The Russos blended visual effects and real environments better and captured scope better as well in WS and so on in Civil War and appear to do so again in Infinity War. Spielberg's actual quote is this - And Spielberg said that on superhero movies in 2015, his quote on GOTG is from a year later. Spielberg also was talking about superhero movies IN GENERAL in his 2015 statement, not MCU specifically. He referring to all them from your Avengers to your Dark Knights to your Logans. Technically no, Spielberg comments was about the genre and the future, he still holds today. Logan and tdk are pioneers of the genre and redefined it , gave it real life and did not over saturate the genre. When people like Speilberg or Nolan or Mangold talk about comic films so negatively, it is due to the saturation of non stop mcu movies that function like process foods. Look at all the backlash to comic films in 2017 alone. It never happened during tdks or logan/X2, spiderman trilogy because the genre had credibility then. Add also these were more serious grown up movies with real creative independent input. tdk and logans are for smart people, reason they will remain highly respected and timeless. mcu movies? not so much.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 7, 2018 13:25:55 GMT
Ah, even when faced with the truth of Spielberg you still can't own up. How predictable.
Nolan and Mangold are jealous of the MCU, nothing more. Mangold in particular is a throwback who has gained a minor ego boost.
People didn't complain back in the past because CBMs weren't as mainstream and as accepted as they are now. They were seen as some fringe culture.
The only backlash in 2017 was against bad CBMs, like Justice League.
As for TDK and Logan, they're for people ashamed of comics.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 7, 2018 13:55:45 GMT
Ah, even when faced with the truth of Spielberg you still can't own up. How predictable.
Nolan and Mangold are jealous of the MCU, nothing more. Mangold in particular is a throwback who has gained a minor ego boost.
People didn't complain back in the past because CBMs weren't as mainstream and as accepted as they are now. They were seen as some fringe culture.
The only backlash in 2017 was against bad CBMs, like Justice League.
As for TDK and Logan, they're for people ashamed of comics. The flaw in this line of thinking is that a significant percentage of any comic book movie's audience has actually, literally read a comic book. I think the number is smaller than you think. Nobody's "ashamed" of comics because they have no opinion of the source material because they have, in very large numbers, very probably never held a floppy or trade in their hands. I know you're just doing shtick and sort of trying to make a separate point, but -- anyway, it depresses the hell out of me that virtually none of the audience, particularly people younger than their 30s, really have ANY opinion of comics, "ashamed" or otherwise. Alright, carry on trolling these poor bastards.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 7, 2018 13:59:26 GMT
Ah, even when faced with the truth of Spielberg you still can't own up. How predictable.
Nolan and Mangold are jealous of the MCU, nothing more. Mangold in particular is a throwback who has gained a minor ego boost.
People didn't complain back in the past because CBMs weren't as mainstream and as accepted as they are now. They were seen as some fringe culture.
The only backlash in 2017 was against bad CBMs, like Justice League.
As for TDK and Logan, they're for people ashamed of comics. The flaw in this line of thinking is that a significant percentage of any comic book movie's audience has actually, literally read a comic book. I think the number is smaller than you think. Nobody's "ashamed" of comics because they have no opinion of the source material because they have, in very large numbers, very probably never held a floppy or trade in their hands. Which just makes the damage filmmakers like Nolan and Singer have done that much worse.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 7, 2018 14:18:31 GMT
The long lasting damage the MCU are doing is much worse, progressively dumbing down their films to the point they are becoming memes of themselves like IM3 and Ragnarok. Comic films will get to the point of Batman & Robin and wont bounce back from the cheesiness thats here now once the genre gets stale and repetitive and people will be longing for the era in which CBMs were intelligent, mature and challenging i.e/ nolans and singers films predominantly
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 7, 2018 14:33:53 GMT
The long lasting damage the MCU are doing is much worse, progressively dumbing down their films to the point they are becoming memes of themselves like IM3 and Ragnarok. The only reason people complain about IM3 is that they fell for the Mandarin Con (which was intentional) and people don't like feeling foolish. With Ragnarok they dislike it because they were expecting the utter annihilation of the Asgardians in some apocalypse, not realizing that's NEVER been what happens in the Ragnarok myth. B&R was much more "grounded" than any MCU film. CBMs that are unashamed have been running 10 years strong with multiple entries every year. Their Era has lasted longer than "Grounded" CBMs have. Back when people were ashamed of comics and disliked it when there were actual comic booky elements and they could pat themselves on the back for how they're "smarter" for being ashamed of that kind of stuff. Instead of being pretentious and having delusions of eloquence.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 7, 2018 15:27:22 GMT
The flaw in this line of thinking is that a significant percentage of any comic book movie's audience has actually, literally read a comic book. I think the number is smaller than you think. Nobody's "ashamed" of comics because they have no opinion of the source material because they have, in very large numbers, very probably never held a floppy or trade in their hands. Which just makes the damage filmmakers like Nolan and Singer have done that much worse. So basically you think they should be prosecuted for war crimes.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 7, 2018 15:33:59 GMT
Which just makes the damage filmmakers like Nolan and Singer have done that much worse. So basically you think they should be prosecuted for war crimes. No.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Feb 7, 2018 15:49:27 GMT
So basically you think they should be prosecuted for war crimes. No. Treason?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 7, 2018 15:53:14 GMT
No, but I would've appreciated there being someone who WAS a comic fan in a supervisory role during Production. Nolan's enough of a control freak he'd likely walk off the set if that happened though.
|
|