|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 1, 2015 13:22:23 GMT -5
Without giving away anything, the last 1/2 hour or so of Avengers 2 REALLY devotes itself to the heroes doing battle but obsessed with civilian casualties.
I wonder what Goyer and company thought when watching this. It almost felt like piling the criticism on from fans.
To be a little fair, though, Avengers 1 I thought also could have used a bit more concern with the civilians during the destruction versus a few too many quips.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,843
|
Post by Metallo on May 14, 2015 14:27:25 GMT -5
Deservedly so. Avengers one does show them saving and protecting civilians. Not enough but that's still more than man of steel bothered to do.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2015 23:22:44 GMT -5
Deservedly so. Avengers one does show them saving and protecting civilians. Not enough but that's still more than man of steel bothered to do. When watching the Avengers 2 film, it was interesting to see how having the heroes actively put the concern for the civilians upfront also energized the battle scenes, rather than take away from them. It grounded the sequences with more heart. When MOS strangely chose not to have Supes be more concerned with collateral damage- it just put a big taint on the action to me. The character choice of kissing and quipping amongst the newly dead bodies really took the cake for me. There's good stuff in MOS, but it's still mind-blowing how easily fixable things weren't early on.
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on May 28, 2015 17:09:01 GMT -5
Well, it's nice to see some of you guys are still trying to keep the place afloat. We were a great group...once, so it's nice to see people continue to feel strongly about it. I was a member of this place since 1999 or so. It was like my "Internet Home", or something like that.
Like the Avengers, we had our own "Civil War", and I had my own role in "torching" the place. Maybe like the fictitious Avengers, the place can reassemble one day?
Anyway, Avengers 2.
I just saw it about a week ago, and I liked it. But it reminded me of Iron Man 2 in the sense that I enjoyed the film and thought it was a good, not great, sequel, and undeniably a notch below the first in execution.
Overall, I *love* the MCU.
My whole life, I've loved Marvel, but I always had a slight preference to the DC characters because of Superman and his relation to the Universe. I also enjoy Batman a lot.
But with the MCU, they've really created a quality series of films. With the exception of the "disappointment" of IM2 (again: good, not great, sequel) during Phase 1. The quality has been a consistently phenomenal, which is astounding considering all the different creative talent involved. IM1, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America 1, amd Avengers were *ALL* awesome movies. Different directors, actors, and creative staffs with SO MANY opportunites to screw it all up. But it was consistently awesome.
Then with Phase 2,---IM3, Captain 2, Thor 2, Guardians of the Galaxy---we got, remarkably, that consistency again!
And then with Avengers 2, I was confused by Stark in the fight again. I assumed (possibly incorrectly since I only saw the movie once) that Stark walked away from being Iron Man (of course, I knew it would be temporary since he would be cast in Avengers 2). But in the beginning, I feel that the characters, especially Stark, regressed a bit. I thought the romance between Banner and Black Widow felt artificial. The Safe House scene with Hawkeye's family didn't ring true either.
I also felt that the Avengers reunion movies would involve a story so epic that the heroes would *HAVE* to come together or risk Earth's destruction. We got that in Avengers 1 when Earth was invaded. That urgency, I felt, was missing in Avengers 2. I didn't get or understand what it was about Ultron that forced everyone to make an Avengers 2. The plot and character felt like it could've been in any one singular character's movie, not the big reunion movie. So yeah, I enjoyed Avengers 2, but I also felt it was not as meticulously written as the first. And like Iron Man 2, I also felt Avengers 2 had a "padding" feel to it.
While I don't believe there's been such a thing as a bad MCU movie, I definitely felt the MCU showed some vulnerability here for the first time. And considering the high profile nature of an Avengers movie, some might perceive the dip in quality as making the next not as much of a must-see.
As for the original topic: Compared to MOS, I'm glad to see the characters try to save people and not just "destruction porn" we got in MOS. But I also feel DC might be able to capitalize and get some of the market share back...if BvS is awesome.
While I was not impressed with the trailer for BvS, trailers aren't the end all be all, especially if the film gets good word-of-mouth. Visually, I'm not impressed with what we've seen from BvS either, which is surprising given that Zack Snyder, nobody how good or bad his movie is, has always been fantastic with the visual aspects of all his films. 300 was awesome, Dawn of the Dead was gun, Watchmen was ok, Sucker Punch sucked, MOS was disappointing, but they were all visually impressive.
Let's see what happens...
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 30, 2015 16:31:38 GMT -5
Well, it's nice to see some of you guys are still trying to keep the place afloat. We were a great group...once, so it's nice to see people continue to feel strongly about it. I was a member of this place since 1999 or so. It was like my "Internet Home", or something like that. Like the Avengers, we had our own "Civil War", and I had my own role in "torching" the place. Maybe like the fictitious Avengers, the place can reassemble one day? Anyway, Avengers 2. I just saw it about a week ago, and I liked it. But it reminded me of Iron Man 2 in the sense that I enjoyed the film and thought it was a good, not great, sequel, and undeniably a notch below the first in execution. Overall, I *love* the MCU. My whole life, I've loved Marvel, but I always had a slight preference to the DC characters because of Superman and his relation to the Universe. I also enjoy Batman a lot. But with the MCU, they've really created a quality series of films. With the exception of the "disappointment" of IM2 (again: good, not great, sequel) during Phase 1. The quality has been a consistently phenomenal, which is astounding considering all the different creative talent involved. IM1, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America 1, amd Avengers were *ALL* awesome movies. Different directors, actors, and creative staffs with SO MANY opportunites to screw it all up. But it was consistently awesome. Then with Phase 2,---IM3, Captain 2, Thor 2, Guardians of the Galaxy---we got, remarkably, that consistency again! And then with Avengers 2, I was confused by Stark in the fight again. I assumed (possibly incorrectly since I only saw the movie once) that Stark walked away from being Iron Man (of course, I knew it would be temporary since he would be cast in Avengers 2). But in the beginning, I feel that the characters, especially Stark, regressed a bit. I thought the romance between Banner and Black Widow felt artificial. The Safe House scene with Hawkeye's family didn't ring true either. I also felt that the Avengers reunion movies would involve a story so epic that the heroes would *HAVE* to come together or risk Earth's destruction. We got that in Avengers 1 when Earth was invaded. That urgency, I felt, was missing in Avengers 2. I didn't get or understand what it was about Ultron that forced everyone to make an Avengers 2. The plot and character felt like it could've been in any one singular character's movie, not the big reunion movie. So yeah, I enjoyed Avengers 2, but I also felt it was not as meticulously written as the first. And like Iron Man 2, I also felt Avengers 2 had a "padding" feel to it. While I don't believe there's been such a thing as a bad MCU movie, I definitely felt the MCU showed some vulnerability here for the first time. And considering the high profile nature of an Avengers movie, some might perceive the dip in quality as making the next not as much of a must-see. As for the original topic: Compared to MOS, I'm glad to see the characters try to save people and not just "destruction porn" we got in MOS. But I also feel DC might be able to capitalize and get some of the market share back...if BvS is awesome. While I was not impressed with the trailer for BvS, trailers aren't the end all be all, especially if the film gets good word-of-mouth. Visually, I'm not impressed with what we've seen from BvS either, which is surprising given that Zack Snyder, nobody how good or bad his movie is, has always been fantastic with the visual aspects of all his films. 300 was awesome, Dawn of the Dead was gun, Watchmen was ok, Sucker Punch sucked, MOS was disappointing, but they were all visually impressive. Let's see what happens... Agree with so much in this post- Particularly with the MCU.... one thing forgotten by many fans, I think, is just how rare it is to have a studio that gets the basic idea of its characters and is able to keep a (mostly) great standard of production film after film--- AND have it link together, despite many writers and directors mixed in the pot. I never dreamed that I'd live to see an Avengers movie done- particularly with actors from their own standalone film. As a kid, I'd dream of these things, but the scarcity of supehero projects in Hollywood at the time just made a SINGLE superhero film done well a small miracle, let alone a string of them and/or crossovers, of all things. Avengers 2 I think could have benefitted from a longer running time and maybe a little more time. I think it's twice as ambitious filmmaking wise, and hits many points, but it's not as polished as, say, a James Cameron Terminator film- but for a factory made product, it's EXTREMELY impressive, even if it doesn't feel quite as successful as the first Avengers film. As far as DC goes, it's a pity that George Miller's JLA didn't happen. If they really wanted to go this route of multiple versions and universes within its DC world, then this would have been a nice thing to see. Under Snyder....... I cross my fingers. Great stylist, but so far I think he's terrible at dramatic scenes that need to be believable.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on May 31, 2015 2:34:22 GMT -5
Well, it's nice to see some of you guys are still trying to keep the place afloat. We were a great group...once, so it's nice to see people continue to feel strongly about it. I was a member of this place since 1999 or so. It was like my "Internet Home", or something like that. Like the Avengers, we had our own "Civil War", and I had my own role in "torching" the place. Maybe like the fictitious Avengers, the place can reassemble one day? Anyway, Avengers 2. I just saw it about a week ago, and I liked it. But it reminded me of Iron Man 2 in the sense that I enjoyed the film and thought it was a good, not great, sequel, and undeniably a notch below the first in execution. Overall, I *love* the MCU. My whole life, I've loved Marvel, but I always had a slight preference to the DC characters because of Superman and his relation to the Universe. I also enjoy Batman a lot. But with the MCU, they've really created a quality series of films. With the exception of the "disappointment" of IM2 (again: good, not great, sequel) during Phase 1. The quality has been a consistently phenomenal, which is astounding considering all the different creative talent involved. IM1, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America 1, amd Avengers were *ALL* awesome movies. Different directors, actors, and creative staffs with SO MANY opportunites to screw it all up. But it was consistently awesome. Then with Phase 2,---IM3, Captain 2, Thor 2, Guardians of the Galaxy---we got, remarkably, that consistency again! And then with Avengers 2, I was confused by Stark in the fight again. I assumed (possibly incorrectly since I only saw the movie once) that Stark walked away from being Iron Man (of course, I knew it would be temporary since he would be cast in Avengers 2). But in the beginning, I feel that the characters, especially Stark, regressed a bit. I thought the romance between Banner and Black Widow felt artificial. The Safe House scene with Hawkeye's family didn't ring true either. I also felt that the Avengers reunion movies would involve a story so epic that the heroes would *HAVE* to come together or risk Earth's destruction. We got that in Avengers 1 when Earth was invaded. That urgency, I felt, was missing in Avengers 2. I didn't get or understand what it was about Ultron that forced everyone to make an Avengers 2. The plot and character felt like it could've been in any one singular character's movie, not the big reunion movie. So yeah, I enjoyed Avengers 2, but I also felt it was not as meticulously written as the first. And like Iron Man 2, I also felt Avengers 2 had a "padding" feel to it. While I don't believe there's been such a thing as a bad MCU movie, I definitely felt the MCU showed some vulnerability here for the first time. And considering the high profile nature of an Avengers movie, some might perceive the dip in quality as making the next not as much of a must-see. As for the original topic: Compared to MOS, I'm glad to see the characters try to save people and not just "destruction porn" we got in MOS. But I also feel DC might be able to capitalize and get some of the market share back...if BvS is awesome. While I was not impressed with the trailer for BvS, trailers aren't the end all be all, especially if the film gets good word-of-mouth. Visually, I'm not impressed with what we've seen from BvS either, which is surprising given that Zack Snyder, nobody how good or bad his movie is, has always been fantastic with the visual aspects of all his films. 300 was awesome, Dawn of the Dead was gun, Watchmen was ok, Sucker Punch sucked, MOS was disappointing, but they were all visually impressive. Let's see what happens... Agree with so much in this post- Particularly with the MCU.... one thing forgotten by many fans, I think, is just how rare it is to have a studio that gets the basic idea of its characters and is able to keep a (mostly) great standard of production film after film--- AND have it link together, despite many writers and directors mixed in the pot. I never dreamed that I'd live to see an Avengers movie done- particularly with actors from their own standalone film. As a kid, I'd dream of these things, but the scarcity of supehero projects in Hollywood at the time just made a SINGLE superhero film done well a small miracle, let alone a string of them and/or crossovers, of all things. Avengers 2 I think could have benefitted from a longer running time and maybe a little more time. I think it's twice as ambitious filmmaking wise, and hits many points, but it's not as polished as, say, a James Cameron Terminator film- but for a factory made product, it's EXTREMELY impressive, even if it doesn't feel quite as successful as the first Avengers film. As far as DC goes, it's a pity that George Miller's JLA didn't happen. If they really wanted to go this route of multiple versions and universes within its DC world, then this would have been a nice thing to see. Under Snyder....... I cross my fingers. Great stylist, but so far I think he's terrible at dramatic scenes that need to be believable.
I think technology has large part to play here. Making a movie that depicts stuff on a grand(or fantastical) scale is now very straight forward.
When you think of all the production "troubles" that went into making Jaws, Star Wars and Superman in the 1970s-----that production "trouble" actually resulted in creating something special precisely because of all the blood and sweat that was spilt by cast and crew alike.
It is what happens when you push the boundaries of what is possible. At the moment only James Cameron seems eager to take a chance on stuff----results are there for all to see in Terminator 2,Titanic and Avatar.
Whatever the critics maybe of Titanic and Avatar they for me represent the type of film-making that is lacking in Marvel's(Or DCs) studio's repertoire.
IMHO the current bunch of super-hero flicks are slick, stylish and entertaining , conforming to a set formula but lacking in something that has weight, and that is real and tangible.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 31, 2015 4:00:43 GMT -5
Agree with so much in this post- Particularly with the MCU.... one thing forgotten by many fans, I think, is just how rare it is to have a studio that gets the basic idea of its characters and is able to keep a (mostly) great standard of production film after film--- AND have it link together, despite many writers and directors mixed in the pot. I never dreamed that I'd live to see an Avengers movie done- particularly with actors from their own standalone film. As a kid, I'd dream of these things, but the scarcity of supehero projects in Hollywood at the time just made a SINGLE superhero film done well a small miracle, let alone a string of them and/or crossovers, of all things. Avengers 2 I think could have benefitted from a longer running time and maybe a little more time. I think it's twice as ambitious filmmaking wise, and hits many points, but it's not as polished as, say, a James Cameron Terminator film- but for a factory made product, it's EXTREMELY impressive, even if it doesn't feel quite as successful as the first Avengers film. As far as DC goes, it's a pity that George Miller's JLA didn't happen. If they really wanted to go this route of multiple versions and universes within its DC world, then this would have been a nice thing to see. Under Snyder....... I cross my fingers. Great stylist, but so far I think he's terrible at dramatic scenes that need to be believable.
I think technology has large part to play here. Making a movie that depicts stuff on a grand(or fantastical) scale is now very straight forward.
When you think of all the production "troubles" that went into making Jaws, Star Wars and Superman in the 1970s-----that production "trouble" actually resulted in creating something special precisely because of all the blood and sweat that was spilt by cast and crew alike.
It is what happens when you push the boundaries of what is possible. At the moment only James Cameron seems eager to take a chance on stuff----results are there for all to see in Terminator 2,Titanic and Avatar.
Whatever the critics maybe of Titanic and Avatar they for me represent the type of film-making that is lacking in Marvel's(Or DCs) studio's repertoire.
IMHO the current bunch of super-hero flicks are slick, stylish and entertaining , conforming to a set formula but lacking in something that has weight, and that is real and tangible.
I don't disagree about the Marvel studio films, but after so many horrible tv movie adaptations it's amazing that there are movies that actually resemble their comic book counterparts and are actually any good--- Would I want them to be deeper and more filmic? Absolutely, but I think it's a progress thing. Marvel intentionally isn't going too dark, but I can't help but applaud how many marks they DO hit in adapting their own works. On the other hand..... Marvel's Daredevil DOES have weight and feel real--- so, will be interesting to see how the rest of their Netflix shows do, too. If all succeeds well--- maybe Marvel will be darker and weighter with Phase... Four? Will see....
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on May 31, 2015 16:57:49 GMT -5
It's funny, but the MCU doesn't feel redundant because they all feel like they got something new to say or do. They've done a good job keeping the characters and storylines fresh and entertaining.
Going dark can be a good thing, (Nolan Bat films), but it can backfire.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 1, 2015 11:44:39 GMT -5
It's funny, but the MCU doesn't feel redundant because they all feel like they got something new to say or do. They've done a good job keeping the characters and storylines fresh and entertaining. Going dark can be a good thing, (Nolan Bat films), but it can backfire. The smart thing that the MCU (and it really looks again and again that Kevin Feige is the mastermind behind it)- for the most part- KNOWS that it has a wealth of great story material and characters draws from them- as well as knowing what supporting characters and situations really help a character shine. For example- When Captain America 2 came out, I was pleasantly surpised when Black Widow/Scarjo was a co-star.. as well as Sam Jackson and the gal who plays Maria Hill- and it was hard to imagine a story as interesting as it was without that 'family' of supporting characters. (Even Hawkeye was supposed to be there, but the Avengers 2 schedule apparently nixed that) Having characters crossover in the comics has been a giant draw in the Marvel comics for decades, but knowing how complicated actors' contracts can be, never expected that there would be as many pleasant crossovers as there have been. The party scene in Avengers 2 was a giant fan joygasm as far as I'm concerned. Why invent great characters and villains when the best ones are aready in the comics? Marvel so far seemed to be great and use almost every major supporting character from the comics & is wiser for it. Superman 3 had all this great access to decades of storylines and characters, but ignored almost everything the comics had right there to offer. If there's a flaw in the MCU (to me), it's that the villains don't have all that much depth and/or Feige doesn't want to push the MCU to a point that it gets TOO dark- but sometimes it also means not enough depth. Bryan Singer shows it's possible to have depth and a degree of darkness with superhero films- without being an r-rated splatterfest that's a turnoff to families or just joyless (plenty of laughs suprisingly in a Singer superhero film). Anyhow- it'll also be interesting to see how this Fantastic Four movie pans out. As it stands now, thrilled mostly with what the MCU is doing- Thrilled with Singer on X-men (though will he leave after Apocalypse? Hard to say) Curious about FF and the X-men movies under Fox after Singer.... Feeling there's many disasters with WB/DC ahead--- or at the very least, disappointments with casting there.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Jun 15, 2015 11:07:38 GMT -5
I think technology has large part to play here. Making a movie that depicts stuff on a grand(or fantastical) scale is now very straight forward.
When you think of all the production "troubles" that went into making Jaws, Star Wars and Superman in the 1970s-----that production "trouble" actually resulted in creating something special precisely because of all the blood and sweat that was spilt by cast and crew alike.
It is what happens when you push the boundaries of what is possible. At the moment only James Cameron seems eager to take a chance on stuff----results are there for all to see in Terminator 2,Titanic and Avatar.
Whatever the critics maybe of Titanic and Avatar they for me represent the type of film-making that is lacking in Marvel's(Or DCs) studio's repertoire.
IMHO the current bunch of super-hero flicks are slick, stylish and entertaining , conforming to a set formula but lacking in something that has weight, and that is real and tangible.
I don't disagree about the Marvel studio films, but after so many horrible tv movie adaptations it's amazing that there are movies that actually resemble their comic book counterparts and are actually any good--- Would I want them to be deeper and more filmic? Absolutely, but I think it's a progress thing. Marvel intentionally isn't going too dark, but I can't help but applaud how many marks they DO hit in adapting their own works. On the other hand..... Marvel's Daredevil DOES have weight and feel real--- so, will be interesting to see how the rest of their Netflix shows do, too. If all succeeds well--- maybe Marvel will be darker and weighter with Phase... Four? Will see....
Just watched the 1st episode(and a bit of the 2nd ) of Daredevil on netflix--not bad!
On edit:- Some very cool fight choreography and quite a bit of exposition through the flashback method.
Definitely takes inspiration from Nolan's Batman.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,843
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 16, 2015 21:05:58 GMT -5
There's no studio that has Marvels track record of superhero movies. Sure there's some mild disappointments but none are outright Awful. They're all formulaic to a degree but there times when they nail that formula to perfection. winter soldier is one of those times. The two fights between cap and Bucky outdo any brawl on MOS in style and especially substance if not scale. They remembered to use the characters to define the and shape action while MOS did it the other way around. It might be the best MCU movie IMO. Age of Ultron does suffer from iron man 2 syndrome. I liked it but it didn't quite live up to the hype. I do think they lose sight of some things for the sake of some universe plan but they still do what THEY are doing better than anyone. you look at Sony and they perfected their formula in Spiderman 2 and have pissed in the bowl ever since. Their run at a cinematic universe fell face fracking down right in cow poop. They Sideshow Bob'd that rake hard.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 17, 2015 21:46:15 GMT -5
Watched Raimi's Spiderman and Spiderman 2, haven't seen them in a long while-
They are AWESOME. The Donner influence that Raimi admits to, shines through....
|
|