Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 5, 2019 12:00:30 GMT -5
Plus a Cannon films promo video on Superman IV
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 6, 2019 10:21:51 GMT -5
Plus a Cannon films promo video on Superman IV I saw the Superman 2 one but never saw the STM one- that is awesome! Thanks for sharing! Such good memories of 'Sneak Previews'- loved that show--- always thought they'd be around forever, how sad they're both gone... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 8, 2019 19:23:29 GMT -5
I really miss those guys. Today’s critics just aren’t the same. Especially in the online/digital/YouTube era where most are more concerned with subscribers than giving a thoughtful studied educated analysis. I didn’t always agree with Ebert and even less so with Siskel but they were real pros.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 11, 2019 14:49:59 GMT -5
I really miss those guys. Today’s critics just aren’t the same. Especially in the online/digital/YouTube era where most are more concerned with subscribers than giving a thoughtful studied educated analysis. I didn’t always agree with Ebert and even less so with Siskel but they were real pros. What's great about those guys is that they were under pressure in their day job to be good writers at their respective newspapers. While they could still get movies wrong, at least they had to articulate their arguments better than just a regular schmoe with an opinion on the net. (Well, I write this, ironically as I'm just a schmoe with an opinion on the net, too).  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 11, 2019 17:41:25 GMT -5
Yeah I think you are right. Back then you actually had to have some real credentials to be a critic with a wide reach. Now I think the bar has been lowered because of today’s media and. Even all the professionals don’t have the experience past critics did. When you look at who some of them have worked for it’s not the most...let’s just say distinguished employers.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 12, 2019 1:00:30 GMT -5
Yeah I think you are right. Back then you actually had to have some real credentials to be a critic with a wide reach. Now I think the bar has been lowered because of today’s media and. Even all the professionals don’t have the experience past critics did. When you look at who some of them have worked for it’s not the most...let’s just say distinguished employers. The great thing about that show is that it was a dialogue and not a monologue.... unlike many of the internet's movie 'critics'. They took it seriously enough to not even say anything to each other on the way up to the shooting. Saw a special on the making of the show that showed that they weren't really all that chummy to one another - but Glad that there was an actual friendship to them before Siskel passed away. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 12, 2019 12:30:53 GMT -5
Good point. They did seem to be talking to each other and the audience when breaking down a film instead of talking at them. It was a conversation on film and it felt like we were a part of it wether we agreed with them or not. With critics now especially YouTube critics it’s more agenda driven to get a certain group of people to give them money.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on Jun 12, 2019 12:45:47 GMT -5
How would they have rated MoS?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 12, 2019 15:18:24 GMT -5
How would they have rated MoS? Hard to say. I do like that in their show, they would qualify movies that were 'on the edge' of thumbs up or thumbs down. I'd be shocked if it ended up being two glowing thumbs up, though. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jun 12, 2019 15:44:12 GMT -5
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 12, 2019 19:26:24 GMT -5
Siskel would have hated it. He seemed to have a real dislike of really violent action movies with not much beyond that going on. He would have compared it to previous Superman films too. Of the two I felt he was harder on blockbusters and harder to please. He did like Batman more than I thought while Ebert wasn’t as crazy about it.
Ebert...hard to say. I don’t think he would have loved it but he would have enjoyed the spectacle. I think both would have been critical of the lack of stronger character elements and story. Recently watched a review of Star Trek TMP and Siskel really disliked it while Ebert went easier on it. They also would have been tough on MOS for its level of violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 13, 2019 0:36:46 GMT -5
Interesting. I don't agree that Nolan ruined Batman, though (though I hated the 3rd Nolan Batman film)--- and I'm curious what Reed thought about Superman Returns.... |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 13, 2019 0:42:07 GMT -5
Siskel would have hated it. He seemed to have a real dislike of really violent action movies with not much beyond that going on. He would have compared it to previous Superman films too. Of the two I felt he was harder on blockbusters and harder to please. He did like Batman more than I thought while Ebert wasn’t as crazy about it. Ebert...hard to say. I don’t think he would have loved it but he would have enjoyed the spectacle. I think both would have been critical of the lack of stronger character elements and story. Recently watched a review of Star Trek TMP and Siskel really disliked it while Ebert went easier on it. They also would have been tough on MOS for its level of violence. Pared down, my main two problems with MOS were: (1) the dramatic scenes were either edited poorly, or the way Snyder directed them were terrible and couldn't be saved by editing- and - (2) the degree of destruction and violence that Superman is oblivious to throughout the film. As much as I hate Emmerich films, even ID4 had more heart than MOS and overall was a much better film. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on Jun 13, 2019 4:51:28 GMT -5
Siskel would have hated it. He seemed to have a real dislike of really violent action movies with not much beyond that going on. He would have compared it to previous Superman films too. Of the two I felt he was harder on blockbusters and harder to please. He did like Batman more than I thought while Ebert wasn’t as crazy about it. Ebert...hard to say. I don’t think he would have loved it but he would have enjoyed the spectacle. I think both would have been critical of the lack of stronger character elements and story. Recently watched a review of Star Trek TMP and Siskel really disliked it while Ebert went easier on it. They also would have been tough on MOS for its level of violence. Pared down, my main two problems with MOS were: (1) the dramatic scenes were either edited poorly, or the way Snyder directed them were terrible and couldn't be saved by editing- and - (2) the degree of destruction and violence that Superman is oblivious to throughout the film. As much as I hate Emmerich films, even ID4 had more heart than MOS and overall was a much better film. If MoS had been as good as Independence Day, I would have been happy. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 13, 2019 12:36:12 GMT -5
Pared down, my main two problems with MOS were: (1) the dramatic scenes were either edited poorly, or the way Snyder directed them were terrible and couldn't be saved by editing- and - (2) the degree of destruction and violence that Superman is oblivious to throughout the film. As much as I hate Emmerich films, even ID4 had more heart than MOS and overall was a much better film. If MoS had been as good as Independence Day, I would have been happy. Difference between ID and MOS is that on ID they had the sense to make it fun. Despite being dumb and hokey it’s a good time. Most of MOS is a joyless slog. People will forgive a lot if a movie at least leaves them feeling good and pumped up even if it’s not very good. There was an emotional disconnect with the end of MOS. The action has to be anchored by characters people are invested in. At a certain point all the action in MOS stopped mattering. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 13, 2019 13:24:11 GMT -5
If MoS had been as good as Independence Day, I would have been happy. Difference between ID and MOS is that on ID they had the sense to make it fun. Despite being dumb and hokey it’s a good time. Most of MOS is a joyless slog. People will forgive a lot if a movie at least leaves them feeling good and pumped up even if it’s not very good. There was an emotional disconnect with the end of MOS. The action has to be anchored by characters people are invested in. At a certain point all the action in MOS stopped mattering. Good point about what people will let slide in a movie- I would agree... I actually (mostly) loved the first half of ID--- did a lot of things just right.... but the second half just dumbed things down too much for me- but even so, still overall more enjoyable than MOS which just felt heartless and somewhat mean-spirited. (Like much of the worst of Goyer's scripts) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 16, 2019 14:44:47 GMT -5
I think that’s why most movies try to end on a high note or at least leave you with a strong final scene. If a movie ends poorly that’s the last thing in people’s minds even if it was good.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 19, 2019 18:25:43 GMT -5
I think that’s why most movies try to end on a high note or at least leave you with a strong final scene. If a movie ends poorly that’s the last thing in people’s minds even if it was good. Right. I certainly felt that way with Game of Thrones' awful ending. It taints all the seasons before, unfortunately.... but thank goodness Avengers: Endgame delivered on a ten year journey. I can't believe that they transcended my own expectations for it. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Jun 20, 2019 9:55:45 GMT -5
Endings are never easy. Endgame basically gave people what the wanted or what they expected. I can’t think of too many out of left field curveballs except for black widow and that’s been one of the few controversial elements of the movie. Feige didn’t try to reinvent the wheel. It’s when writers try to be inventive and subvert expectations it’s when things can go awry. People have their own ideas of how it should end even when you ignore how it’s all executed. GOTs biggest problems to me were the pacing. They tried to cram too much into too short a time. Should have ended with full seasons these last two. People thought certain things weren’t explained well enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jun 21, 2019 15:37:55 GMT -5
Endings are never easy. Endgame basically gave people what the wanted or what they expected. I can’t think of too many out of left field curveballs except for black widow and that’s been one of the few controversial elements of the movie. Feige didn’t try to reinvent the wheel. It’s when writers try to be inventive and subvert expectations it’s when things can go awry. People have their own ideas of how it should end even when you ignore how it’s all executed. GOTs biggest problems to me were the pacing. They tried to cram too much into too short a time. Should have ended with full seasons these last two. People thought certain things weren’t explained well enough. For me, it was GOT abandoning a character that I felt sympathetic for initially (Daenarys)- and then going full-out villain by the end. It's like turning Luke to the dark side at the end of ROTJ. It makes one feel annoyed at all the emotional investment, when it's a key lead. If it were a supporting character, then I feel it's more forgiveable (and even interesting). Better execution would have made it more forgiveable- but even then, maybe not enough. In any case- what a sad waste.... |
|
