Can i just say something that will make people hate me? I enjoyed the Avengers but did not really see what was supposed to be special about it besides the special effects.
DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
-
-
I think everyone loves throwing the word "Dark" around without fully understanding it.
The Batman movies were Dark, people got routinely killed in those movies, Joker Pencil trick, etc.
This is just Jonathan Kent not sure about his son's future and what they'll have to do to protect his son's secret.
So… what? Superman has to be happy-go-lucky, gee-whiz, sunshine and rainbows, and Jonathan Kent needs to be the perfect man?
Also. there is absolutely zero Daily Planet stuff here. When we get there it'll be lighthearted and fun I bet.
Perry White is in the movie.
He's in the trailer running from an explosion, but he's black now. -
@Thousand:
Character conflict is fine and even encouraged. Again, look at the Captain America movie. We had all that PLUS a fun, adventurous, light-hearted tone.
I thought Captain America was really awful, dumb and unmemorable. I didn't care about any of the characters and came out of it underwhelmed. Good poster art though, actually better than the rest of the film IMO.
-
Man, all the crap people are complaining about here… They would HATE the current Superman Comics...
Superman hasn't had good comics in years, aside from All-Star. Even Morrison's Action Comics is underwhelming.
-
So… what? Superman has to be happy-go-lucky, gee-whiz, sunshine and rainbows, and Jonathan Kent needs to be the perfect man?
No, he just has to not be a total asshole who tells his son to let children drown.
-
@Sniper:
Perry White is in the movie.
He's in the trailer running from an explosion, but he's black now.Oh, I know all that. What I'm saying is, Clark getting his Job at the Planet, meeting Perry, Lois, Jimmy if he's there etc.
There's plenty of room for comedy and light heartedness in those scenes. I mean, the first Avengers trailer was pretty bleak too. It was pretty much all "What a Grave threat" "Look at all the people dying in explosions" "The Avengers don't like each other and are fighting" "What are you PREPARED to do?". They threw in the Joke at the very end, but the original trailer highlighted the action and the stakes at hand, there was 0 comedy until the VERY end after the title.
We'll see more of the movie later, and I'm sure the next trailer will highlight some of the fun parts. I think they're just trying to show people a side of the movie here they haven't seen from a Superman movie before.
@Thousand:
No, he just has to not be a total asshole who tells his son to let children drown.
I love how You keep turning "Maybe…" into "TOTALLY DROWN THOSE FUCKERS".
He said "Maybe", he was Unsure. He just found out his Son can lift a bus. I do not care WHO you are, or how much you feel for other people. When something terrible happens to a bunch of kids, a parent never thinks "Gee, I hope all those kids are ok... mine too" they think "Oh, I hope my son is alright, and everybody else too".
You own kid always comes first. This is Jonathan not sure how to react to the situation. the "Maybe" is him saying "I want to protect my own son, but what he did was the right thing, so I am conflicted" Not "LET THE KIDS DROOOOOWN".
-
I love how You keep turning "Maybe…" into "TOTALLY DROWN THOSE FUCKERS".
He said "Maybe", he was Unsure. He just found out his Son can lift a bus. I do not care WHO you are, or how much you feel for other people. When something terrible happens to a bunch of kids, a parent never thinks "Gee, I hope all those kids are ok... mine too" they think "Oh, I hope my son is alright, and everybody else too".
You own kid always comes first. This is Jonathan not sure how to react to the situation. the "Maybe" is him saying "I want to protect my own son, but what he did was the right thing, so I am conflicted" Not "LET THE KIDS DROOOOOWN".
Eh, to reply to your question of "realistically how you react to having a kid with superpowers."
Actually My reply is eh…... what kind? Also I'm pretty sure, I wouldn't say "maybe" in reluctance to my son using his powers to save lives. Yes, I would be protective. But come on. If I was in Jonathan Kent's shoes I would have said "that's fine, but be more careful." Or "put on a mask so no one finds out your identity." I get that he's unsure, but lets be honest here: lives were at risk.
I know one thing though: If I had superpowers, I would revel in it, and enjoy the power.
-
There's also the fact that we don't know how developed Clark's powers are at this point in the movie, nor do we know how much any of the Kents, Clark Included really understand his powers or his limits. Do they know he's indestructible at this point? Do they know he couldn't have easily gotten himself killed in there?
Clark is a kid at this point, it's not his job to save people. On the other hand, what he did could have easily gotten himself killed if he over or underestimated his powers, or worse, he could have crushed the bus on accident, cutting off the only escape route.
Also, there were adults in the car, could the adult have opened the emergency door and then instructed everyone to swim out calmly? Was there an alternative that didn't require Clark to reveal himself?
"Maybe" could mean 100 different things. But lol, Thousand Lion is taking it as "LET THE LITTLE ASSHOLES DROWN"
-
It doesn't matter what context or nuance that scene will actually have in the movie. The intent of it being put the way it was in the trailer is pretty clear. To make us think "OMG, Pa Kent just told Superman to not save people, this movie looks so DEEP!" And it feels 100% wrong.
-
This post is deleted!
-
Oh you people are so picky is makes my brain go round and round, round and round. How do you ever enjoy anything.
I've seen enough of happy-all-the-time Superman. I want different. This is different. Papa Kent might be a bastard? Whatever! It's a different interpretation. Jonathan can be the guy in this movie who's afraid what will happen to his son if he reveals himself, that he will get hunted by the government. Because as we all know, the government, and the people as a whole, are stupid and dangerous. And the "maybe" was obviously not the end of the conversation. You know it, so take it easy. Be open to new ideas.
Btw, I'm not that familiar with Superman. Does Jonathan die in most of the stories? I know he died in Smallville. He's not present in the Superman Returns film.
-
No, it's not "Clear" because that's not the message I got from that in any way shape or form.
It's Pa Kent trying to tell his son "You have to protect your identity" and then when forced with a crappy alternative by his son (People dying) Pa is just lost so he basically goes "Maybe".
"Maybe" is not a definite word. You keep saying he "told Superman not to save people". No. That is absolutely positively not what he said.
"Superman, do not save those people" <- This would be saying that
"Maybe" is a sign of uncertainty. He's been faced with an extremely difficult situation. He wants his son protected but he realizes saving those people was right, so he's conflicted, so he gives a non-committal answer. I'm sure in the actual movie both he and Clark come to the conclusion that what Clark did was right, but that protecting his identity is still important.They're just trying to highlight that having Clark's powers isn't a simple "Have powers -> Save People" Paradigm, and that the movie will explore this in a real human way.
It baffles me that everybody wants this to be a cartoon.
Btw, I'm not that familiar with Superman. Does Jonathan die in most of the stories? I know he died in Smallville. He's not present in the Superman Returns film.
Sometimes he dies, sometimes he lives, sometimes he dies and Superman personally goes to hell and saves him so then he lives.
The comics are confusing sometimes.
-
.@Demon:
Sometimes he dies, sometimes he lives, sometimes he dies and Superman personally goes to hell and saves him so then he lives.
The comics are confusing sometimes.
Which is why I primarily stick to the movies.
-
WAIT.
I just thought of something I was neglecting. Birthright. They're doing Jonathan from Birthright. It makes sense now.
Before the "New 52", when Superman continuity was a muddled mess, with nobody knowing WHICH Origin story was the actual Canon origin story, Mark Waid did Superman Birthright as the new de-facto Superman Origin. Jonathan Kent is kind of distant and worrisome about Clark here. THAT is what they are doing.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Thousand:
Wall of text I'll dissect in a minute
Ladies and Gentlemen, what you see here is an example of The Backfire Effect. By picking on something I know he loves, I challenge his beliefs, but instead of leading to perhaps a peaceful compromise, all I do is strengthen his convictions and lead him into an irrational discourse where he (very quickly) devolved into personal attacks.
Now watch, as I once again foolheartedly attempt to bring about a compromise, and action which will either lead him to a) ignore my post entirely, or b) believe even more that he is correct and I am an idiot.
And remember kids, this is all in fun, because Science!
[hide]
Are you going to argue semantics? You know what I mean. The whole dark, dreary, bleak tone with grey filtering and dramatic scores out of a Ridley Scott movie.
Actually, I'm arguing diction, for yours was poor in that instant. No need to get so defensive. At that point I did indeed know what you meant, but I was just picking fun. Though, you have to admit, what you said above is much more eloquent, and really strengthen your argument, and makes it sound much more thought out. You should have gone with that instead of your original choice!
Because that's his character.
That's not an answer. You can't just start an origin movie off that way. Kent has to become that. Otherwise it's just poor writing. It's like starting off a new series of Batman films but not mentioning that his parents being murdered is what lead him on the path to become Batman.
Tip number 2 for strengthening your argument: always complete your thoughts. Give reasons. Don't just say "Because X!" That's a quitter's argument!
Character conflict is fine and even encouraged. Again, look at the Captain America movie. We had all that PLUS a fun, adventurous, light-hearted tone.
I would actually argue that out of the Phase One bunch, Captain America was the darkest, both tonally and a in a cinematographic sense. That said, the dark tone could just be due to the fact that I always felt that impending sense of doom and tragedy throughout. Though, I do remember it being the Phase One film that had the least laughs. However, it should be noted that after Iron Man, its my favorite of the P1 bunch (excluding Avengers of course.)
Hahaha, you're really butt hurt over Avengers being such a better movie than DKR if you're bringing it into the argument.
Ah, so now the personal attacks begin. To be fair I made it personal to begin with, but I wasn't attacking you.
And no, I can't be butthurt if I don't believe it. For me Rises, is still the best Superhero film of the year (not even close to the best, that goes to Moonrise Kingdom, but shortly it will be replaced by either Les Mis or Django.)So, no, the reason I brought Tee Avengers into it was because I had this foolish notion that I might be able to point out a light-hearted film that I knew you liked (and its the only film I know your opinion on that's not a Nolan film) that has some of the flaws you accuse "dark" movies of having.
And, like I mentioned, I love The Avengers, but that doesn't stop me from seeing its flaws )the biggets of which, I'll expand upon soon, is that it works better as a part of a series than it does on its own.)
That it was pretentious shlock with an overbloated plot, unmemorable characters, terrible writing and rehashed themes that didn't go anywhere? Nope, don't think those were its flaws at all.
Actually, no. What you originally said was, and I quote "story is sacrificed where the plot ends up not making sense and the characters come off as shallow idiots." Please don't change your intention in post, because the only the only part of this new quote I'd accuse The Avengers of being guilty of is rehashed themes. However in the original statement I would accuse The Avengers of sacrificing story, plot (mostly motives) that makes little sense in the confines of the film itself, and shallow (they're not idiots) characters. I'll get to all of that in a moment.
Because he has an inferiority complex about having to surrender the throne to his brother compounded by the fact that he's actually adopted, born from the mortal enemies of his adopted race. He's a character who craves to rule because of not really having a place in the world and people to call his own which is really his personal tragedy.
Where is any of that shown in The Avengers? We get him whining about being adopted, but that's about it. Why is that motive? Also that last line is such an inference that it's almost ridiculous, especially since he has a place, he just doesn't want to accept it for reasons that don't even make sense in Thor (by the way, despite Hiddleston's amazing performance, I find Loki's character on paper to be the very worst part of what I consider to be the worst of P1.)
It's a container of massive amounts of energy. Any race would want it. Fucking humans wanted it. Also, sequel.
Why would any race want it? What kind of energy? I understand its supposed to be a mystery but all we know about it is "magical energy omg." We don't know why any of that fodder and pointless alien race wanted it. We don't even know who they are. And the best part? You mention the sequel. I doubt we'll ever hear from them again is Phase 2. Hell, I doubt they'll rehash the Cube as a plot device for Phase 2. I mean, if the Asgardians manage to lose it that's just sad.
Here's what you apparently can't understand. In film, there is a thing called tone.
Ah yes, thank you. I'm a shit-ton in debt because I'm going to school to learn nothing about my profession, even the things that are common sense. It's a miracle I haven't failed out in the 4 years I've been here. Where would I be without you?
In a movie like Avengers, you roll with the more far-fetched elements of the film because the strength of the movie is the characters and the sense of adventure.In a movie with a darker tone, the strength of the movie is the drama and the story. Which is why when stupid shit happens in a movie like say as an example DKR (of which there was aplenty)…
Wait. There was a sense of adventure in The Avengers?
And no, you don't just roll with it. That only happens when you have your blinders on and can't admit to there being a single flaw in a simple movie that you like. Which, before you throw it in my face I can do with Rises: to quickly paced–more time should have been spent developing certain ideas; some of the plot points made little sense, i.e. the whole Wall Street thing was really stupid; Alfred being written off halfway through was really strange; Talia's motives were weak. These are all flaws I find in Rises, but they don't hinder my enjoyment of it because I wasn't on a warpath to hate it.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you can like or even love a film as much as you want, but you have to be able to admit the issues it has (because no film is perfect) and not lose your cool when someone says something negative about it.it's much, much worse because it's a movie that claims to be a paragon of masterful writing when the stuff that happens in it wouldn't fly in a Saturday morning cartoon hence pretentious.
Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed Nolan's Batmans were this. In fact, most seem to see them as character driven films as well, as that's what people remember from them, and I think that's probably hurt Rises so much, While Bane, Talia, Catwoman, and Blake were all good (with Ms. Kyle being the best of the bunch) none of them were able to be The Scarecrow or The Joker of Rises, which puts the plot much more on immediate display. The only thing was, Rises had no plot issues that TDK didn't have (and I'd argue TDK's issues were worse.) The only one of the films with a pretty solid overall plot is Begins.
Although, I'm really interested in what you'd consider to be something that wouldn't fly in a Saturday Morning Cartoon.
I could argue on how you're wrong and your analysis of the characterization is linear and amateurish (trust me I could,
Ah, amateurish? Well lets delve deep, because, no, I am not going to trust you.
does Stark's character development of willfully sacrificing his life amount to nothing because of a reckless plan he concocted in desperation long ago
How was what he did in The Avengers anything less than a reckless plan he concocted in desperation? It's no different than when he had Pepper overload the core in Iron Man 1, an action which he fully believed would lead to his death. He was making the sacrifice play then. That was his character development for that movie. In The Avengers we have Cap make a baseless comment, and suddenly it's fact. In fact, I still don't understand why Caps said that. At the start of the Avengers Stark was already a good guy who was trying to help the world. That's exactly what he still was at the end of it.
why did Thor want to fight his brother
See, here's your first problem. Thor didn't want to fight his brother. But anyway, Thor's motives are exactly the same as they were in Thor. He has absolutely zero character development during the movie. All that happens is he makes a couple more friends. Please, point me to any place that he might show a shred of depth. Oh, and before you saw 'when he asks about Natalie Portman's character," you should realize that's no good. Within the context of the film there is no information about her. In fact, when watching it, my girlfriend, who at the time hadn't seen any of the movies, asked me who she was.
why did Banner want to atone for his actions and use his power for good
Why did he? Please, if you know the answer, tell me, because I have no idea why he went to help. When did he change his mind about SHIELD? If anything, he should have been even more against them considering the last thing he learned before hulking out. Please, as much as I love Banner and the Hulk here, they're one of the things that bugs me the most.
did the characters really set aside their differences when the movie shows them setting aside their differences like Fury's little ploy somehow negated their motivations and development,
My question here is did they actually learn to set aside their difference or was it forced upon them by Fury? If its the former, it's better, if it's the later, then that hurts an already poor situation even more.
My biggest problem here though is that "learning to work together" is the weakest form of character development there is. It's something you see in a 20 minute kids show; granted The Avengers had to have character friction for comedy, that's a given, but when you biggest character development is that, there's an issue. Especially when only 2 people learned to work as a team. (Stark and Cap. Widow and Hawkeye were always on board. Thor never really joined up, he was helping to acheive his own goals, and the Hulk. We'll see my above problems with this.)In a light-hearted movie, if the characters are likable and engaging and have a decent amount of spotlight and development and the cast is well-balanced, that's enough. When you're going dark, those emotional conflicts and character growth and strong writing have a much bigger role. And again, from my experience, writers try to hard in being dark and not enough in writing a story that supports the lofty goals that such films have.
So basically what you're saying is that "light-hearted" movies don't have to be written well, but "dark" ones do?
That's a really poor stance to have, as all it does is distort your perception of what a film should be. The criteria of a good film should be universally, not tonally (or genre-ly) dependent. All that does is increase lowered expectations which leads to shoddier product (see the current horror genre for the bets example there is.) The criteria you judge The Avengers by should be the same criteria you judge Rises and Man of Steel by. It should also be the same criteria you use for Silence of the Lambs, Fargo, Pulp Fiction, and Citizen Kane.Avengers didn't pretend to be something it wasn't.
I agree, but you seem to believe that The Avengers is something that it wasn't trying to be.
Which is more than can be said for films made by Christopher Nolan.
Ah, see how it all comes back to this vendetta you seem to have about Nolan?
With most of Nolan's films I think it's the fans who pretend that they're trying to be more.- I don't think that Nolan intended for the Batman films to be more than Batman movies set in as real a world as possible. He had no agenda here.
- Inception was simply a creative take on a heist movie. It wasn't complicated at all, but the general audience tried to make it so.
- The Prestige. I don't know what to say about it, as I don't know what you dislike about it except for maybe the twist. I don't have any clue as to what it's pretending to be.
- Insomnia. This one's really black and white. Nothing to say here, because I bet you didn't even know it was a Nolan film.
- Memento is still my favorite movie he's made. And it's really simple. It might seem a bit complicated at first due to the creative way they tell the story, but it's another simple film that's solid in every aspect.
And my point is, it's much worse when it happens in dark films.
If this is your point, you really need to argue it better. Maybe have a thesis or something, as I didn't get that at all.
I don't care if it only came off that way due to editing. The sheer fact that they implied it in their trailer is so exaggeratedly dark and dramatic. It eels less like a genuinely sincere scene of character conflict and more like a ploy by the advertising team. "LOOK AT US, WE'RE SO DARK AND EDGEY, COME WATCH US!"
Finally we come back around to being on topic! (Though it is my fault.)
See, this is an issue you're allowed to have, but it's when you use an instance to claim generalities that you need to stop yourself and think about what you're doing. I won't lie, I actually do have some issue with the whole "maybe" thing, but I'm not letting it deter me. I'm still really excited for this movie and I will be going to see it.
And really, if it is a ply by the advertising team, you have to commend them for knowing what sells these days.
Let's be real here, most people my 25 or younger hate Superman. That hate that he's perfect. They hate the Ideal. What they want it someone who has suffered, who can be beaten. Because a lot of these people are cynical assholes, they don't know a lot about Supes. You ask them to name his rogue's gallery you get Luther and maybe Bizarro if you're lucky. It's just how it goes.How can you fault a marketing team for doing its job? (It's the same thing Amazing Spiderman did,and that movie wasn't nearly as dark as people thought it would be. In fact, it still has one of my favorite comedy bits out of all 3 supehero films to come out this year. )
Beyond laying fault, say the marketing works, and a lot of people who were originally against Supes got to see it, and the movie isn't as dark as it seems and it really gets them into Superman, would you still be upset?
[/hide]TL;DR: blah blah off topic blah, marketing team is smart and does its job well, blah.
Also, I'm surprised that no one seems to get the optimistic Supes feel from that voice over near the end of the trailer. To me that solidified the idea that he's becoming the Supes everyone loves.
-
@Nex:
Ladies and Gentlemen, what you see here is an example of The Backfire Effect. By picking on something I know he loves, I challenge his beliefs, but instead of leading to perhaps a peaceful compromise, all I do is strengthen his convictions and lead him into an irrational discourse where he (very quickly) devolved into personal attacks.
Now watch, as I once again foolheartedly attempt to bring about a compromise, and action which will either lead him to a) ignore my post entirely, or b) believe even more that he is correct and I am an idiot.
And remember kids, this is all in fun, because Science!
[hide]
Actually, I'm arguing diction, for yours was poor in that instant. No need to get so defensive. At that point I did indeed know what you meant, but I was just picking fun. Though, you have to admit, what you said above is much more eloquent, and really strengthen your argument, and makes it sound much more thought out. You should have gone with that instead of your original choice!
That's not an answer. You can't just start an origin movie off that way. Kent has to become that. Otherwise it's just poor writing. It's like starting off a new series of Batman films but not mentioning that his parents being murdered is what lead him on the path to become Batman.
Tip number 2 for strengthening your argument: always complete your thoughts. Give reasons. Don't just say "Because X!" That's a quitter's argument!
I would actually argue that out of the Phase One bunch, Captain America was the darkest, both tonally and a in a cinematographic sense. That said, the dark tone could just be due to the fact that I always felt that impending sense of doom and tragedy throughout. Though, I do remember it being the Phase One film that had the least laughs. However, it should be noted that after Iron Man, its my favorite of the P1 bunch (excluding Avengers of course.)
Ah, so now the personal attacks begin. To be fair I made it personal to begin with, but I wasn't attacking you.
And no, I can't be butthurt if I don't believe it. For me Rises, is still the best Superhero film of the year (not even close to the best, that goes to Moonrise Kingdom, but shortly it will be replaced by either Les Mis or Django.)So, no, the reason I brought Tee Avengers into it was because I had this foolish notion that I might be able to point out a light-hearted film that I knew you liked (and its the only film I know your opinion on that's not a Nolan film) that has some of the flaws you accuse "dark" movies of having.
And, like I mentioned, I love The Avengers, but that doesn't stop me from seeing its flaws )the biggets of which, I'll expand upon soon, is that it works better as a part of a series than it does on its own.)
Actually, no. What you originally said was, and I quote "story is sacrificed where the plot ends up not making sense and the characters come off as shallow idiots." Please don't change your intention in post, because the only the only part of this new quote I'd accuse The Avengers of being guilty of is rehashed themes. However in the original statement I would accuse The Avengers of sacrificing story, plot (mostly motives) that makes little sense in the confines of the film itself, and shallow (they're not idiots) characters. I'll get to all of that in a moment.
Where is any of that shown in The Avengers? We get him whining about being adopted, but that's about it. Why is that motive? Also that last line is such an inference that it's almost ridiculous, especially since he has a place, he just doesn't want to accept it for reasons that don't even make sense in Thor (by the way, despite Hiddleston's amazing performance, I find Loki's character on paper to be the very worst part of what I consider to be the worst of P1.)
Why would any race want it? What kind of energy? I understand its supposed to be a mystery but all we know about it is "magical energy omg." We don't know why any of that fodder and pointless alien race wanted it. We don't even know who they are. And the best part? You mention the sequel. I doubt we'll ever hear from them again is Phase 2. Hell, I doubt they'll rehash the Cube as a plot device for Phase 2. I mean, if the Asgardians manage to lose it that's just sad.
Ah yes, thank you. I'm a shit-ton in debt because I'm going to school to learn nothing about my profession, even the things that are common sense. It's a miracle I haven't failed out in the 4 years I've been here. Where would I be without you?
Wait. There was a sense of adventure in The Avengers?
And no, you don't just roll with it. That only happens when you have your blinders on and can't admit to there being a single flaw in a simple movie that you like. Which, before you throw it in my face I can do with Rises: to quickly paced–more time should have been spent developing certain ideas; some of the plot points made little sense, i.e. the whole Wall Street thing was really stupid; Alfred being written off halfway through was really strange; Talia's motives were weak. These are all flaws I find in Rises, but they don't hinder my enjoyment of it because I wasn't on a warpath to hate it.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you can like or even love a film as much as you want, but you have to be able to admit the issues it has (because no film is perfect) and not lose your cool when someone says something negative about it.Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed Nolan's Batmans were this. In fact, most seem to see them as character driven films as well, as that's what people remember from them, and I think that's probably hurt Rises so much, While Bane, Talia, Catwoman, and Blake were all good (with Ms. Kyle being the best of the bunch) none of them were able to be The Scarecrow or The Joker of Rises, which puts the plot much more on immediate display. The only thing was, Rises had no plot issues that TDK didn't have (and I'd argue TDK's issues were worse.) The only one of the films with a pretty solid overall plot is Begins.
Although, I'm really interested in what you'd consider to be something that wouldn't fly in a Saturday Morning Cartoon.
Ah, amateurish? Well lets delve deep, because, no, I am not going to trust you.
How was what he did in The Avengers anything less than a reckless plan he concocted in desperation? It's no different than when he had Pepper overload the core in Iron Man 1, an action which he fully believed would lead to his death. He was making the sacrifice play then. That was his character development for that movie. In The Avengers we have Cap make a baseless comment, and suddenly it's fact. In fact, I still don't understand why Caps said that. At the start of the Avengers Stark was already a good guy who was trying to help the world. That's exactly what he still was at the end of it.
See, here's your first problem. Thor didn't want to fight his brother. But anyway, Thor's motives are exactly the same as they were in Thor. He has absolutely zero character development during the movie. All that happens is he makes a couple more friends. Please, point me to any place that he might show a shred of depth. Oh, and before you saw 'when he asks about Natalie Portman's character," you should realize that's no good. Within the context of the film there is no information about her. In fact, when watching it, my girlfriend, who at the time hadn't seen any of the movies, asked me who she was.
Why did he? Please, if you know the answer, tell me, because I have no idea why he went to help. When did he change his mind about SHIELD? If anything, he should have been even more against them considering the last thing he learned before hulking out. Please, as much as I love Banner and the Hulk here, they're one of the things that bugs me the most.
My question here is did they actually learn to set aside their difference or was it forced upon them by Fury? If its the former, it's better, if it's the later, then that hurts an already poor situation even more.
My biggest problem here though is that "learning to work together" is the weakest form of character development there is. It's something you see in a 20 minute kids show; granted The Avengers had to have character friction for comedy, that's a given, but when you biggest character development is that, there's an issue. Especially when only 2 people learned to work as a team. (Stark and Cap. Widow and Hawkeye were always on board. Thor never really joined up, he was helping to acheive his own goals, and the Hulk. We'll see my above problems with this.)So basically what you're saying is that "light-hearted" movies don't have to be written well, but "dark" ones do?
That's a really poor stance to have, as all it does is distort your perception of what a film should be. The criteria of a good film should be universally, not tonally (or genre-ly) dependent. All that does is increase lowered expectations which leads to shoddier product (see the current horror genre for the bets example there is.) The criteria you judge The Avengers by should be the same criteria you judge Rises and Man of Steel by. It should also be the same criteria you use for Silence of the Lambs, Fargo, Pulp Fiction, and Citizen Kane.I agree, but you seem to believe that The Avengers is something that it wasn't trying to be.
Ah, see how it all comes back to this vendetta you seem to have about Nolan?
With most of Nolan's films I think it's the fans who pretend that they're trying to be more.- I don't think that Nolan intended for the Batman films to be more than Batman movies set in as real a world as possible. He had no agenda here.
- Inception was simply a creative take on a heist movie. It wasn't complicated at all, but the general audience tried to make it so.
- The Prestige. I don't know what to say about it, as I don't know what you dislike about it except for maybe the twist. I don't have any clue as to what it's pretending to be.
- Insomnia. This one's really black and white. Nothing to say here, because I bet you didn't even know it was a Nolan film.
- Memento is still my favorite movie he's made. And it's really simple. It might seem a bit complicated at first due to the creative way they tell the story, but it's another simple film that's solid in every aspect.
If this is your point, you really need to argue it better. Maybe have a thesis or something, as I didn't get that at all.
Finally we come back around to being on topic! (Though it is my fault.)
See, this is an issue you're allowed to have, but it's when you use an instance to claim generalities that you need to stop yourself and think about what you're doing. I won't lie, I actually do have some issue with the whole "maybe" thing, but I'm not letting it deter me. I'm still really excited for this movie and I will be going to see it.
And really, if it is a ply by the advertising team, you have to commend them for knowing what sells these days.
Let's be real here, most people my 25 or younger hate Superman. That hate that he's perfect. They hate the Ideal. What they want it someone who has suffered, who can be beaten. Because a lot of these people are cynical assholes, they don't know a lot about Supes. You ask them to name his rogue's gallery you get Luther and maybe Bizarro if you're lucky. It's just how it goes.How can you fault a marketing team for doing its job? (It's the same thing Amazing Spiderman did,and that movie wasn't nearly as dark as people thought it would be. In fact, it still has one of my favorite comedy bits out of all 3 supehero films to come out this year. )
Beyond laying fault, say the marketing works, and a lot of people who were originally against Supes got to see it, and the movie isn't as dark as it seems and it really gets them into Superman, would you still be upset?
[/hide]TL;DR: blah bllah off topic blah, marketing team is smart and does its job well, blah.
Also, I'm surprised that no one seems to get the optimistic Supes feel from that voice over near the end of the trailer. To me that solidified the idea that he's becoming the Supes everyone loves.
Magnificent post, one of the best I have read on this forum for a while.
You truely annihilated TLC there but unfortunately he has hyped 'The Avengers' to himself for a year now, he is much too far fallen to his personal believes that Avengers is greatest movie of all time and should be made subject of worship. He is truely offended how Dark Knight Rises even dared to come out in same summer and pull attention from his beloved Avengers even though it was overall nice summer for movie viewers who are free from such extreme bias and paranoia.
I liked Avengers myself, I even watched it again as Blue ray, it is a entertaining and eye candy film that could been lot worse, but making it somesort of cult film is pretty strange for me, but I was never much of an marvel comic enthustiast to begin with.
But try not to bash your head against wall with TLC, he is perhaps most biased and overzealous fan I have seen in this particular forums, be it Avengers, Negima or that wretched heretic Nolan hes does not hold opinions becasue they are infact facts set to stone, having an discussion or argument with anything TLC is obsessed about is pretty much a lost cause, not even RobbyBevard or anyone could make him change his opionions.
As for Man of Steel itself? I really anticipate it, I like its cast and its direction, I never really liked Superman itself becuase setting was never really intresting for me, however this movie shows some nice promise and I expect to be entertained by it.
Superman Returns (2006) was rather dissapointent, specially Lex Luthor was particularly weak to the point of comedy.
-
! @Nex:
! > Ladies and Gentlemen, what you see here is an example of The Backfire Effect. By picking on something I know he loves, I challenge his beliefs, but instead of leading to perhaps a peaceful compromise, all I do is strengthen his convictions and lead him into an irrational discourse where he (very quickly) devolved into personal attacks.Now watch, as I once again foolheartedly attempt to bring about a compromise, and action which will either lead him to a) ignore my post entirely, or b) believe even more that he is correct and I am an idiot.
And remember kids, this is all in fun, because Science!
! What? lol Yo're the one who brought in Avengers to the argument for very obvious reasons I might add. Adding psychological terms doesn't give you more credibility.
! And yeah, I'll be taking option b. In an argument a person can respond…or not. Great psychological analysis there Freud.
! @Nex:
! > Actually, I'm arguing diction, for yours was poor in that instant.No need to get so defensive. At that point I did indeed know what you meant, but I was just picking fun. Though, you have to admit, what you said above is much more eloquent, and really strengthen your argument, and makes it sound much more thought out. You should have gone with that instead of your original choice!
! Diction=semantics. So you admit you're just picking on choice of words instead of the actual argument lol
! @Nex:
! > That's not an answer. You can't just start an origin movie off that way. Kent has to become that. Otherwise it's just poor writing. It's like starting off a new series of Batman films but not mentioning that his parents being murdered is what lead him on the path to become Batman.
! I think you misunderstood something? Where did I say you can't have character conflict and three dimensionality? It's the opposite I insisted on I believe. It's the tone I have a problem with.
! @Nex:
! > Tip number 2 for strengthening your argument: always complete your thoughts. Give reasons. Don't just say "Because X!" That's a quitter's argument!
! It…is his character. What else I can say? Like the sky is blue and Batman is a character about personal sacrifice. It is what it is. Also I would REAALLLY tone down the condescending attitude if I were you. It doesn't annoy me or anything but it does make your posts goofy and hard to take seriously (you'll probably bring up some ostrich burying his head in the sand psychoanalysis here, trust me, I'm saying this for your own good).
! @Nex:
! > I would actually argue that out of the Phase One bunch, Captain America was the darkest, both tonally and a in a cinematographic sense. That said, the dark tone could just be due to the fact that I always felt that impending sense of doom and tragedy throughout. Though, I do remember it being the Phase One film that had the least laughs. However, it should be noted that after Iron Man, its my favorite of the P1 bunch (excluding Avengers of course.)
! It was the darkest, but it still had an overall light tone of hope, adventure and defending the American way.
! @Nex:
! > Ah, so now the personal attacks begin.
! Oh please, we all know what this is about.
! @Nex:
! > To be fair I made it personal to begin with, but I wasn't attacking you.
! Check that condescending attitude again.
! @Nex:
! > And no, I can't be butthurt if I don't believe it. For me Rises, is still the best Superhero film of the year (not even close to the best, that goes to Moonrise Kingdom, but shortly it will be replaced by either Les Mis or Django.)
! Lol, sure didn't show that you didn't care in the DKR thread. I still chuckle at one post you made when people were bashing the movie.
! "Those aren't complaints, those are personal grievances!" hahaha
! @Nex:
! > So, no, the reason I brought Tee Avengers into it was because I had this foolish notion that I might be able to point out a light-hearted film that I knew you liked (and its the only film I know your opinion on that's not a Nolan film) that has some of the flaws you accuse "dark" movies of having.
! Oh it serves as an example sure but we all know the underlying motives behind it.
! @Nex:
! > And, like I mentioned, I love The Avengers, but that doesn't stop me from seeing its flaws )the biggets of which, I'll expand upon soon, is that it works better as a part of a series than it does on its own.)
! Whatever flaws the movie has, of which it does have because I can actually recognize and accept the flaws o the movies I love, what you listed wasn't one of them.
! @Nex:
! > Actually, no. What you originally said was, and I quote "story is sacrificed where the plot ends up not making sense and the characters come off as shallow idiots." Please don't change your intention in post, because the only the only part of this new quote I'd accuse The Avengers of being guilty of is rehashed themes. However in the original statement I would accuse The Avengers of sacrificing story, plot (mostly motives) that makes little sense in the confines of the film itself, and shallow (they're not idiots) characters. I'll get to all of that in a moment.
! Dude, since we're giving pro-tips. Being anally retentive of every single detail in a post doesn't make you a master debater, it just makes you come off as the guy who obsesses over every detail instead of focusing on the actual argument like an idiot (and no, not a personal attack, that is what idiots would do). It shows that you can't read between the lines and generally miss the forest for the trees.
! My problem with movies with a dark tone is that they're usually pretentious because they act like they're the smartest things in the world when they have poor writing and terrible characters that act deep but are really not. If you actually thought about what I said instead of picking on the actual words I used you'd see I didn't change the intent of what I said, only the words I used.
! If you didn't cherry pick what I said, you'd see the addendum that comes with what you quoted "movies with that sort of tone open to a lot of pretentious writing like…
! @Nex:
! > Where is any of that shown in The Avengers? We get him whining about being adopted, but that's about it. Why is that motive? Also that last line is such an inference that it's almost ridiculous, especially since he has a place, he just doesn't want to accept it for reasons that don't even make sense in Thor (by the way, despite Hiddleston's amazing performance, I find Loki's character on paper to be the very worst part of what I consider to be the worst of P1.)
! WHAT IS SUBTEXT DURRR Go watch Thor.
! Also, since you made it personal again by calling Loki's character as shallow, Loki as character is far more complex and engaging than anything Bane ever did. I mean Loki actually had pathos and a character arc.
! @Nex:
! > Why would any race want it? What kind of energy? I understand its supposed to be a mystery but all we know about it is "magical energy omg." We don't know why any of that fodder and pointless alien race wanted it. We don't even know who they are. And the best part? You mention the sequel. I doubt we'll ever hear from them again is Phase 2. Hell, I doubt they'll rehash the Cube as a plot device for Phase 2. I mean, if the Asgardians manage to lose it that's just sad.
! It's energy to power their giant snake dragons, who cares? I'm not denying it's a McGuffin to advance the plot. It serves its purpose in the story. Cube bad. Don't let bad guys get. We didn't need an exact explanation of what the bad guys were going to use it for, it wouldn't have added anything to the story.
! @Nex:
! > Ah yes, thank you. I'm a shit-ton in debt because I'm going to school to learn nothing about my profession, even the things that are common sense. It's a miracle I haven't failed out in the 4 years I've been here. Where would I be without you?
! Weren't you the one who couldn't undestand how Bane's final fight could have written differently and Zephos had to explain to you that you literally rewinded as much as you wanted? I just figured not to take my chances when you couldn't understand something so basic. Pro-tip not a personal attack, just stating my intent.
! @Nex:
! > Wait. There was a sense of adventure in The Avengers?
And no, you don't just roll with it. That only happens when you have your blinders on and can't admit to there being a single flaw in a simple movie that you like. Which, before you throw it in my face I can do with Rises: to quickly paced–more time should have been spent developing certain ideas; some of the plot points made little sense, i.e. the whole Wall Street thing was really stupid; Alfred being written off halfway through was really strange; Talia's motives were weak. These are all flaws I find in Rises, but they don't hinder my enjoyment of it because I wasn't on a warpath to hate it.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you can like or even love a film as much as you want, but you have to be able to admit the issues it has (because no film is perfect) and not lose your cool when someone says something negative about it.
! See, this is why I didn't think you properly understood what "Tone" is. When there's a plot hole or a character inconsistency or whatever, provided it's nothing major, we can be more forgiving about it with action films or the like because the movie isn't about the intricacy of the plot, it's about the action and the fun of it. Like a roller coaster ride. When you have a movie that professes to be the epitome of smart writing where everything depends on the story to support the plot and the characters…and that support is like a mound of sand...we have a problem.
! And losing my cool? YOU were the one who made this about DKR vs Avengers. I just hated the trailer for a Superman movie because it felt too much like movies I disliked by Nolan. You were also the one who coined a new term when people were pointing out flaws in your beloved DKR.
! @Nex:
! > Now, I don't think anyone ever claimed Nolan's Batmans were this. In fact, most seem to see them as character driven films as well, as that's what people remember from them, and I think that's probably hurt Rises so much, While Bane, Talia, Catwoman, and Blake were all good (with Ms. Kyle being the best of the bunch) none of them were able to be The Scarecrow or The Joker of Rises, which puts the plot much more on immediate display. The only thing was, Rises had no plot issues that TDK didn't have (and I'd argue TDK's issues were worse.) The only one of the films with a pretty solid overall plot is Begins.Although, I'm really interested in what you'd consider to be something that wouldn't fly in a Saturday Morning Cartoon.
! Oh please, I was part of the hype for the movie, I read all the critical acclaim, we both know what this movie was being touted as with its amazing Tales of Two Cities plot (that didn't amount to anything btw) that was so "shocking and thought provoking" Don't even try to backtrack and claim it was about being a character study. And it fails even at that, the only character who was a half-way decent character you listed was Bane and his character went nowhere.
! Also, a normal human shattering concrete with a kick is one thing that would qualify.
! @Nex:
! > Ah, amateurish? Well lets delve deep, because, no, I am not going to trust you.
! Oh, please. Do you really want to do this? It's so tangential to the argument. I could dance the dance if you want but it doesn't add anything to the main argument.
! And yes, amateurish. Because you're nitpicking on minor character flaws and blowing them up to be fundamental faults. I mean, could you give something that doesn't sound so… petty.
! @Nex:
! > How was what he did in The Avengers anything less than a reckless plan he concocted in desperation? It's no different than when he had Pepper overload the core in Iron Man 1, an action which he fully believed would lead to his death. He was making the sacrifice play then. That was his character development for that movie. In The Avengers we have Cap make a baseless comment, and suddenly it's fact. In fact, I still don't understand why Caps said that. At the start of the Avengers Stark was already a good guy who was trying to help the world. That's exactly what he still was at the end of it.
! Because it was a well contemplated decision on his part opposed to something he pulled out his ass while dangling over a precipice like in the first movie. More importantly, this decision had actual build up to it putting Stark's own character into question so his decision actually feels like a moment of growth opposed to the feeling of reckless impulse from the first movie.
! Also Cap didn't like Stark because he was so flippant about the crisis, treating everything as another game, not showing any morals or integrity and making him think he wasn't the type of person to be able to do what needed to be done. It wasn't that he didn't think him a good person as much as he was too cocky about it. And he was right as Stark admitted as much.
! @Nex:
! > See, here's your first problem. Thor didn't want to fight his brother.But anyway, Thor's motives are exactly the same as they were in Thor. He has absolutely zero character development during the movie. All that happens is he makes a couple more friends. Please, point me to any place that he might show a shred of depth. Oh, and before you saw 'when he asks about Natalie Portman's character," you should realize that's no good. Within the context of the film there is no information about her. In fact, when watching it, my girlfriend, who at the time hadn't seen any of the movies, asked me who she was.
! No, he didn't want to fight his brother but he still had to. Do I need to explain why? Why even bring it up if not to be snarky geez.
! Thor's character growth happened in Thor. Avengers however was really a good way to show exactly how much he was different from the brash, reckless youth he was at the start. More importantly, there was a lot of personal history between him and his brother which served as a good emotional thrust for the character.
! Also I'm sensing a problem you're having here. That you think for a character to be engaging and interesting, he must constantly show character development. For that, I must say, you're overthinking things. Again, tone. The characters just need to be fun and interesting and be who they are. They just go and play off each other and be awesome. I mean guess it's a flaw that Thor isn't a more dynamic character but is it a flaw when it doesn't detract the film or is necessary for the story?
! @Nex:
! > Why did he? Please, if you know the answer, tell me, because I have no idea why he went to help. When did he change his mind about SHIELD? If anything, he should have been even more against them considering the last thing he learned before hulking out. Please, as much as I love Banner and the Hulk here, they're one of the things that bugs me the most.
! Because he had a gigantic green behemoth inside him and wasn't an asshole to leave the world to the apocalypse He was always a character that wanted to atone for his sins and do good. His whole talk with Stark was about him just letting go and direct his monstrosity into a positive direction.
! @Nex:
! > My question here is did they actually learn to set aside their difference or was it forced upon them by Fury? If its the former, it's better, if it's the later, then that hurts an already poor situation even more.
My biggest problem here though is that "learning to work together" is the weakest form of character development there is. It's something you see in a 20 minute kids show; granted The Avengers had to have character friction for comedy, that's a given, but when you biggest character development is that, there's an issue. Especially when only 2 people learned to work as a team. (Stark and Cap. Widow and Hawkeye were always on board. Thor never really joined up, he was helping to acheive his own goals, and the Hulk. We'll see my above problems with this.)
! Nick Fury just gave them a push. That doesn't invalidate their feelings or motivations in any way. The fact that they were all willing to stop the fighting, roll up their sleeves and do what needed to be done was enough. What, did they need to have a group talk to satisfy you? Not everything needs to be spelled out to the letter.
! @Nex:
! > So basically what you're saying is that "light-hearted" movies don't have to be written well, but "dark" ones do?
That's a really poor stance to have, as all it does is distort your perception of what a film should be. The criteria of a good film should be universally, not tonally (or genre-ly) dependent. All that does is increase lowered expectations which leads to shoddier product (see the current horror genre for the bets example there is.) The criteria you judge The Avengers by should be the same criteria you judge Rises and Man of Steel by. It should also be the same criteria you use for Silence of the Lambs, Fargo, Pulp Fiction, and Citizen Kane.
! It's not about lowering your standards, it's about getting what you pay for. I watch an action film because I want to be pumped up and have a blast, I watch a darker movie because I want a more intelligent story and realistic characters. I watch a holocaust movie because I want to be reflective and depressed. I watch Silence of the Lambs because I want a mystery thriller which engages my visceral side with the fucked up things that happen. I watch Fargo because I want a quirky Cohen movie with a bleak, depressing message. I watch Pulp Fiction because I want an exploitation movie with a lot of good dialogue, crazy shoot-em up scenes and fun characters. I watch Citizen Kane for a basic, strong story about the life of a man with no quirky scenes or exaggerated camera angles. I watched Dark Knight Rises because I wanted a smart movie with engaging characters and a well-written story about a Clash of Wills and personal sacrifice and overcoming oppression…and instead I got a stupid fucking action move that wouldn't have passed even with a lighter tone with the amount of stupid that was in it.
! I don't know how to break this to you but if you're judging all movies to live up to Citizen Kane, you'll be sorely disappointed. And I only like Citizen Kane. I admit it's technical achievements and its masterful story telling and its significance of one of the most important movies of our time. But it is also a bit dark and depressing and predictable for my liking. I'm not knocking it, it is a perfect movie for what it is.
! @Nex:
! > I agree, but you seem to believe that The Avengers is something that it wasn't trying to be.
! A fun action movie with engaging characters? I think that's what it was trying to be.
! @Nex:
! > Ah, see how it all comes back to this vendetta you seem to have about Nolan?Erm relevance? We were talking about DKR last time I checked. I have no vendetta. I just don't like a majority of his movies because they all have the same flaws. I hate Michael Bay movies too, it doesn't mean I have a vendetta against him (and no, I'm not comparing them).
@Nex:
With most of Nolan's films I think it's the fans who pretend that they're trying to be more.
-
I don't think that Nolan intended for the Batman films to be more than Batman movies set in as real a world as possible. He had no agenda here.
-
Inception was simply a creative take on a heist movie. It wasn't complicated at all, but the general audience tried to make it so.
-
The Prestige. I don't know what to say about it, as I don't know what you dislike about it except for maybe the twist. I don't have any clue as to what it's pretending to be.
-
Insomnia. This one's really black and white. Nothing to say here, because I bet you didn't even know it was a Nolan film.
-
Memento is still my favorite movie he's made. And it's really simple. It might seem a bit complicated at first due to the creative way they tell the story, but it's another simple film that's solid in every aspect.
I haven't watched Prestige and Insomnia. Inception I liked. Memento was good until the ending ruined the movie.
@Nex:
If this is your point, you really need to argue it better. Maybe have a thesis or something, as I didn't get that at all.
Look above
@Nex:
Finally we come back around to being on topic! (Though it is my fault.)
See, this is an issue you're allowed to have, but it's when you use an instance to claim generalities that you need to stop yourself and think about what you're doing. I won't lie, I actually do have some issue with the whole "maybe" thing, but I'm not letting it deter me. I'm still really excited for this movie and I will be going to see it.
And really, if it is a ply by the advertising team, you have to commend them for knowing what sells these days.
Let's be real here, most people my 25 or younger hate Superman. That hate that he's perfect. They hate the Ideal. What they want it someone who has uffered, who can be beaten. Because a lot of these people are cynical assholes, they don't know a lot about Supes. You ask them to name his rogue's gallery you get Luther and maybe Bizarro if you're lucky. It's just how it goes.How can you fault a marketing team for doing its job? (It's the same thing Amazing Spiderman did,and that movie wasn't nearly as dark as people thought it would be. In fact, it still has one of my favorite comedy bits out of all 3 supehero films to come out this year. )
Beyond laying fault, say the marketing works, and a lot of people who were originally against Supes got to see it, and the movie isn't as dark as it seems and it really gets them into Superman, would you still be upset?
I'm 22 and I hate it. Now who's generalizing?
Really, I know what the marketing is going for and what sells. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Again, this whole dark character thing has been so overdone, it's become cliche. And the implication of that line is in really bad taste just to draw in the people who lap up the pseudopsychological stuff that come with Nolan films. Pus it just feels wrong for that line to be in a Superman movie.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Magnificent post, one of the best I have read on this forum for a while.
You truely annihilated TLC there but unfortunately he has hyped 'The Avengers' to himself for a year now, he is much too far fallen to his personal believes that Avengers is greatest movie of all time and should be made subject of worship. He is truely offended how Dark Knight Rises even dared to come out in same summer and pull attention from his beloved Avengers even though it was overall nice summer for movie viewers who are free from such extreme bias and paranoia.
I liked Avengers myself, I even watched it again as Blue ray, it is a entertaining and eye candy film that could been lot worse, but making it somesort of cult film is pretty strange for me, but I was never much of an marvel comic enthustiast to begin with.
But try not to bash your head against wall with TLC, he is perhaps most biased and overzealous fan I have seen in this particular forums, be it Avengers, Negima or that wretched heretic Nolan hes does not hold opinions becasue they are infact facts set to stone, having an discussion or argument with anything TLC is obsessed about is pretty much a lost cause, not even RobbyBevard or anyone could make him change his opionions.
As for Man of Steel itself? I really anticipate it, I like its cast and its direction, I never really liked Superman itself becuase setting was never really intresting for me, however this movie shows some nice promise and I expect to be entertained by it.
Superman Returns (2006) was rather dissapointent, specially Lex Luthor was particularly weak to the point of comedy.
Hahaha, oh man. Overzealous? Facts set in stone? This is really rich coming from you. Do I need to bring up your history in the Politics thread?
Yo Shandian, how about you make an argument instead of hiding behind Nex's coattails and patting him on the back? I don't think Nex needs a wingman.
Oh and one more thing, for all your claims that I worship Avengers, I'd like to point out one more time that I didn't bring the movie into the argument.
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Thousand:
Massive Wall of Words
Sweet, I'm glad you responded. Most people in my experience don't at this point.
Let's do this.
[hide]
What? lol Yo're the one who brought in Avengers to the argument for very obvious reasons I might add. Adding psychological terms doesn't give you more credibility.
Uh, come on man. Read a bit more. I explicitly said that I purposely brought up The Avengers quite a few times. I don't know how you're trying to turn this into a point.
And I wasn't trying to gain any credibility by linking to an article I found on the internet. That's just me being a condescending ass-hole. Something I'll get to in a moment.
And yeah, I'll be taking option b. In an argument a person can respond…or not. Great psychological analysis there Freud.
Not really psychological analysis, just my way of calling you out in front of everyone to up my chances of getting a response.
Diction=semantics.
Actually, no. Diction is your choice of words. Semantics is a branch of linguistics that studies meaning in language. You can also use it to argue the meaning of a sentence, phrase, or, yes, a word, but see, I was never arguing the meaning of "emo-y" I was arguing the choice of using it in your argument. Thus, I was arguing diction, not semantics.
So you admit you're just picking on choice of words instead of the actual argument lol
Yeah, having already explicitly stated this I'm not quite sure why you're trying to throw it back in my face. You can do better.
I think you misunderstood something? Where did I say you can't have character conflict and three dimensionality? It's the opposite I insisted on I believe. It's the tone I have a problem with.
Uh…that's not what I was arguing. See, this is good. Simple, because obviously I agree with you. What this is a response to, however, is you simply saying that "because that's his character," which was in response to me inquiring as to why SUperman is who he is.
It…is his character. What else I can say? Like the sky is blue and Batman is a character about personal sacrifice. It is what it is.
Once again, WHY is that his character? You have to look at this as if Superman isn't an already established character! That's what an origin movie is all about. They don't go in assuming you never everything about the character! You have to assume that a good portion of your fanbase is young and has never really read that much Superman. If you don't then you're going to be alienating a portion of your audience.
Also I would REAALLLY tone down the condescending attitude if I were you. It doesn't annoy me or anything but it does make your posts goofy and hard to take seriously (you'll probably bring up some ostrich burying his head in the sand psychoanalysis here, trust me, I'm saying this for your own good).
Here's the thing, in my experience on the internet, any argument seems to quickly devolve into personal attacks, which I don't really like to do, as I don't know you. So I generally try to use sarcasm as my weapon of choice, but in a discussion like this I generally switch to condescension. It's how I can be mean without really being mean.
I also purposely try to keep it goofy, because I see no point in just being a dick on the internet, and, in the end, I'd like everyone to walk away happy because there's no reason to hate someone on the internet.
If you wish me to cut it out here I will, I just won't have as much fun.It was the darkest, but it still had an overall light tone of hope, adventure and defending the American way.
And how do you know that Man of Steel won't end up this way. You've already seen the movie in your mind, based on what the trailer gave you, and you filled it with everything you know you'd hate. I'd like to point to Supes voice-over at the end of the trailer again. He seems happy with where he is. I've already mentioned it, but I think the dark cinematography is meant to purposely contrast with Supes to make him stand out more, and I also wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of darkness in his past that made him the idealistic man he is.
My point is that you have no idea what this movie can be, so you need to stop acting like you do.Check that condescending attitude again.
Ah, but I started being condescending after you attacked me. So…
Lol, sure didn't show that you didn't care in the DKR thread. I still chuckle at one post you made when people were bashing the movie.
"Those aren't complaints, those are personal grievances!" hahaha
Most of my responses where aimed to one person in particular. I don't remember hsi name, as I don't care to, but I think he was really obsessed with Tobi. It started as him posting a list of plotholes that hurt the movie, which he liked. So me and a couple other people responded, politely, pointing out instances in the film that negated the idea of most of those plotholes. I did this because he said that he liked the movie, and I figured he'd appreciate seeing how most of those supposed plotholes were false, thus enabling him to like the movie even more. What happened, however is that we saw the purest form of the backfire effect I have ever seen. Despite him liking the movie, he had already come to believe those plotholes were truth, so when I challenged that notion things exploded and devolved very quickly.
If I remember right, that comment came after he, or maybe it was a link to a site–I don't remember, started listing things like, "I didn't like how Bane dies, why didn't they show how Wayne got to Gotham, Why did he take time to make a burning bat symbol?"
A lot of why was listed were very opinionated things that very obviously specific to the poster, and and this point he kept arguing things we had already disproved, so the only way for him to still have an issue was for it to be personal.
I'll be the first to admit that I lost my head there. It would have been much better having the discussion even a week later. I still stand by my praise of the film, I just don't think I would have argued about it so much. Then again, I myself fell victim to the backfire effect there.Oh it serves as an example sure but we all know the underlying motives behind it.
The motive was to introduce something that might be able to bring about compromise, and to do so I needed to use a film you liked. This is the only one I knew, as I've already stated. Don't try and make it seem like my actions are underhanded.
Whatever flaws the movie has, of which it does have because I can actually recognize and accept the flaws o the movies I love, what you listed wasn't one of them.
What flaws does it have, and why were the ones I listed not flaws? Please, expand.
Dude, since we're giving pro-tips. Being anally retentive of every single detail in a post doesn't make you a master debater, it just makes you come off as the guy who obsesses over every detail instead of focusing on the actual argument like an idiot (and no, not a personal attack, that is what idiots would do). It shows that you can't read between the lines and generally miss the forest for the trees.
I don't think I ever claimed to be a master debater (because I'm not, I was simply decent in high school.) What I did claim is that I was going to dissect your post. Which I did.
And no, this wasn't me being anally retentive. This was you purposely changing what you said, something that if you actually did in a real debate would get you called out by your opponent. Stick to you guns. Don't try to completely negate my argument by changing your words, try to negate by actually forming an argument.
And I think an idiot would have given up on this long ago, and wouldn't be "anally retentive."
Also, there's no reading between the lines with what you posted. Which, by the way, in a real debate, you can't accuse someone of not reading between the lines, everything you intend really has to be explicitly stated.My problem with movies with a dark tone is that they're usually pretentious because they act like they're the smartest things in the world when they have poor writing and terrible characters that act deep but are really not. If you actually thought about what I said instead of picking on the actual words I used you'd see I didn't change the intent of what I said, only the words I used.
If this is what you mean, this say this!
This "That it was pretentious shlock with an overbloated plot, unmemorable characters, terrible writing and rehashed themes that didn't go anywhere? does not equal this "story is sacrificed where the plot ends up not making sense and the characters come off as shallow idiots." See, if story is sacrficed, how can you have an overbloated plot? If the characters are memorable for being shallow idiots, how are they unmemorable? Then you introduced 3 completely new ideas.
Don't pretend like I'm at some kind of fault here. You just need to learn to keep everything straight.If you didn't cherry pick what I said, you'd see the addendum that comes with what you quoted "movies with that sort of tone open to a lot of pretentious writing like…
Uh, right there all you said was "That it was pretentious shlock with an overbloated plot, unmemorable characters, terrible writing and rehashed themes that didn't go anywhere? Nope, don't think those were its flaws at all."
At least you got the pretentious part right. You start talking about tone later, and then you start being condescending, which, by the way, this is before I was being condescending, so, let he has sinned not cast the first stone, or something.WHAT IS SUBTEXT DURRR Go watch Thor.
Thank you for giving me a chance to expand upon a point that I forgot to previously. You can't just say "go watch X" to an issue addressed in The Avengers. The Avengers needs to be able to be a contained film that can work completely on its on, and it is, essentially, it's just the characters motivations are heavily dependent on people having seen the previous films. Which, is understandable. But you still have to assume there is a portion of your audience who haven't seen any of them, and write to them.
Also, since you made it personal again by calling Loki's character as shallow, Loki as character is far more complex and engaging than anything Bane ever did. I mean Loki actually had pathos and a character arc.
Wait, what? I made it personal by saying I have a problem with Loki? Oh dear lord.
I like how you think insulting Bane is going to do something to me even though I've already said I don't even think he's the best part of the movie. Hint, if you really want to get a rise out of me, my all time favorite movies are (Nightmare Before Christmas, Pulp Fiction, Nightmare on Elm Street, South park: BLU, and The Room – go crazy.)And far more complex? "I'm adopted whine, whine whine, I hate my father, whine, whine whine" (Oh My God I need that Ace picture.) "I should be king. And I hate you. Because I'm adopted!" Seriously Loki, despite being tremendously performed, is a very weak character. Hiddleston gives him life no doubt, but on paper, he's just meh. He's slightly better written in The Avengers, but not by much.
It's energy to power their giant snake dragons, who cares? I'm not denying it's a McGuffin to advance the plot. It serves its purpose in the story. Cube bad. Don't let bad guys get. We didn't need an exact explanation of what the bad guys were going to use it for, it wouldn't have added anything to the story.
Huzzah we have found middle ground on something! High Five! And I care, since you're talking about story being sacrificed an what-not. The entire plot hinges on this cube, and yet we really know nothing about it, other than, as previosuly stated, Magic! It's simply just there.
Weren't you the one who couldn't undestand how Bane's final fight could have written differently and Zephos had to explain to you that you literally rewinded as much as you wanted? I just figured not to take my chances when you couldn't understand something so basic. Pro-tip not a personal attack, just stating my intent.
Nope, I understand how it could be rewritten, (though I still have no issue with it, as Bats had already beaten him maybe a literal 5 minutes earlier, and Bane would have died had Talia not shown up. Doing it over would have been a redundant and time wasting. Bane was no longer the biggest threat. He needed to be taken out of the equation and fast and Catwoman needed redemption) I just saw no reason to doing so, and I still hold is was good way to finish him off. Perhaps not perfect, but good enough.
See, this is why I didn't think you properly understood what "Tone" is. When there's a plot hole or a character inconsistency or whatever, provided it's nothing major, we can be more forgiving about it with action films or the like because the movie isn't about the intricacy of the plot, it's about the action and the fun of it. Like a roller coaster ride.
See, now I think that you're confused as to what tone is. In film there are two different types: cinematographic tone, and story tone. The former is obviously the literal way a movie looks. Generally, this is used to compliment the story, by creating an atmosphere that works for the story tonally, but it is also frequently used as a contrast. Story tone is found in the script, and it's the most simple to understand as anyone who has gone to school has had to read a book and talk about its tone.
What you seem to be using tone as is a broad genre, thus leading to genre-forgiveness, which is soemthign I mention with horror films. Thus my simple response to this is: you can't have different criteria for what makes a film good based on the genre it's in.You can however be like Ebert and judge a film based on what it is trying to accomplish in and of itself, but when you broaden your horizon to compare it to other films, not matter what genre, you have to judge them all the same. Thus you can't simply forgive plotholes just because it is a fun action movie.
When you have a movie that professes to be the epitome of smart writing where everything depends on the story to support the plot and the characters…and that support is like a mound of sand...we have a problem.
And what movie has ever professed this? Certainly not Rises.
And losing my cool? YOU were the one who made this about DKR vs Avengers. I just hated the trailer for a Superman movie because it felt too much like movies I disliked by Nolan. You were also the one who coined a new term when people were pointing out flaws in your beloved DKR.
Actually, I brought up The Avengers. You're the one who brought up Rises. I've already stated my reasons for using The Avengers. You simply using Rises because you think it bothers me.
And I coined no new term. Personal grievance existed long before I typed it.Oh please, I was part of the hype for the movie, I read all the critical acclaim, we both know what this movie was being touted as with its amazing Tales of Two Cities plot (that didn't amount to anything btw) that was so "shocking and thought provoking" Don't even try to backtrack and claim it was about being a character study. And it fails even at that, the only character who was a half-way decent character you listed was Bane and his character went nowhere.
If I recall, most people were simply saying it was the best of the series, and most reviews seemed to have problems with the plot. The film only has a rating of 8/10 on RT (which, funnily is the same that The Avengers has; I'm not trying to say anything just thought it was funny.) And if you watched the reviews, it was only the first that were overly positive, and as more came out it mellowed out. And I didn't read a sinle review that said it was shocking or thought provoking. I do remember reading a few that found it heavy handed.
Also, a normal human shattering concrete with a kick is one thing that would qualify.
Really. Batman not being able to break, not shatter, a broken down stone? Now who's being nitpicky? Yes a normal human wouldn't be able to break a stone with a single kick. But when has Batman been a normal human? Most of what he does a normal human can't do,
Oh, please. Do you really want to do this? It's so tangential to the argument. I could dance the dance if you want but it doesn't add anything to the main argument.
Actually it does, as I'm arguing that The Avengers can be just as guilty as the things you accuse dark movies of being.
And yes, amateurish. Because you're nitpicking on minor character flaws and blowing them up to be fundamental faults. I mean, could you give something that doesn't sound so… petty.
So yo're admitting that there are character flaws? Good, now you need to drop minor, because in a movie driven solely by its characters, any flaws with them are a fault on the movie. If you're going to rely on characters to move your narrative they need to be very strong, and in The Avengers they weren't. They were all there to tell jokes and fight.
Because it was a well contemplated decision on his part opposed to something he pulled out his ass while dangling over a precipice like in the first movie. More importantly, this decision had actual build up to it putting Stark's own character into question so his decision actually feels like a moment of growth opposed to the feeling of reckless impulse from the first movie.
Finally some real discussion!
I wouldn't call the decision to fly the nuke out well contemplated. It was more of a necessity and he was the only one who could do it. He was essentially forced into the situation. Yes he could have just run away, but Stark, hasn't been that man since the start of IM1.
But why was Stark's character in question? I'll tell you: because he's the most popular of the bunch, so he had to be the face of the movie thus they needed a character arc for him, so they nerfed his previous development and just rehashed the sacrifice play.
Also, his decision in the first movie wasn't a reckless impulse. It's what he saw as the only option out after having tried everything else. He didn't just have Pepper overload it, he put thought into it. In fact I'd call it a more thought out plan than grabbing a nuke and flying it out of the city.Also Cap didn't like Stark because he was so flippant about the crisis, treating everything as another game, not showing any morals or integrity and making him think he wasn't the type of person to be able to do what needed to be done. It wasn't that he didn't think him a good person as much as he was too cocky about it. And he was right as Stark admitted as much.
That's how Stark always is and always will be though. It's how he deals with though situations. Lot of snark and cynicism. If that's actually a purposeful character flaw and they right it out, he's not really Stark anymore. I can understand the clashing of ideals with Cap, that makes sense. But Tony admitting it is what bothered me the most about the movie. (Actually that's a lie, what bothers me the most is that the US launched a nuke on its own city and yet there will be no ramifications to that.)
No, he didn't want to fight his brother but he still had to. Do I need to explain why? Why even bring it up if not to be snarky geez.
Thor's character growth happened in Thor. Avengers however was really a good way to show exactly how much he was different from the brash, reckless youth he was at the start. More importantly, there was a lot of personal history between him and his brother which served as a good emotional thrust for the character.
Also I'm sensing a problem you're having here. That you think for a character to be engaging and interesting, he must constantly show character development. For that, I must say, you're overthinking things. Again, tone. The characters just need to be fun and interesting and be who they are. They just go and play off each other and be awesome. I mean guess it's a flaw that Thor isn't a more dynamic character but is it a flaw when it doesn't detract the film or is necessary for the story?
Once again, see my argument about everything needing to be self contained.
And yes a character must develop throughout the course of a movie! That is basic writing 101! If you have a character who ends the movie the same way he started it then there has been no character development!
If the characters are just fun and there for jokes, then yes, it'll be good for a couple of watches, but there's no depth, and thus no staying power. Yes, the interactions were fantastic, and that's what holds the film together. But you can only listen to the same joke so many times before it's not funny anymore. And yes it is a flaw because this isn't a story driven movie, it's character driven, and Thor is without a doubt the weakest link here.
No matter what kind of story you're telling, character development is a must.Because he had a gigantic green behemoth inside him and wasn't an asshole to leave the world to the apocalypse He was always a character that wanted to atone for his sins and do good. His whole talk with Stark was about him just letting go and direct his monstrosity into a positive direction.
See I kind of get that. I do. It's obvious he wants to help people from the start. What I don't get is why his problems with SHIELD seem to disappear and he's all happy-happy-joy-joy. I get him feeling like he needs to go help. Sort of, and a lot of that really is subtext, but nothing in his actions prior to when he shows up in the city really reflects that.
Banner and the Hulk were easily my favorite part of the movie though, so take that for what you will.Nick Fury just gave them a push. That doesn't invalidate their feelings or motivations in any way. The fact that they were all willing to stop the fighting, roll up their sleeves and do what needed to be done was enough. What, did they need to have a group talk to satisfy you? Not everything needs to be spelled out to the letter.
See the thing is, they all would have worked together in the end anyway, because none of them would have let Loki win. My issue is really in the execution. Fury's push only affected 2 of the team. Widow and Hawkeye were doing their jobs. Thor was still just pursuing his brother. Banner was the only one who consciously made the decision to fight on his own accord.
The Avengers were formed by the end of the movie no doubt, and they'll probably work together fine in the sequel, but it just feels strange for them all to go from fighting each other on the ship to being best friends after the fight with Loki. And the biggest reason it feels this way is the lack of character development. Only 3 people ever seem to bond with one another, Stark and Banner, and Stark and Cap. Widow and Hawkeye don't ever feel like part of the team and neither does Thor.I'm just falling into redundancy at this point so I'll move on.
It's not about lowering your standards, it's about getting what you pay for.
Last I checked you're paying the same price for all of these if you see them in theaters. And that's still a poor stance to have. You should expect the best product you can receive. That's the only way to increase the quality of what Hollywood puts out. The biggest reason I got into the industry is because I want to bring some respectability back to the horror genre, because I'm sick of people labeling Silence of the Lambs a "psychological thriller" because they're too embarrassed by the genre to call it what it is: a horror movie.
I watch a darker movie because I want a more intelligent story and realistic characters.
You really need to expand your horizons a bit if you think only darker movies give a more intelligent story and realistic characters. Check out Moonrise Kingdom if you haven't. It's a light hearted feel-good comedy by Wes Anderson and it's still the smartest thing I've seen this year, and all the characters are very realistic.
I watched Dark Knight Rises because I wanted a smart movie with engaging characters and a well-written story about a Clash of Wills and personal sacrifice and overcoming oppression…
See, based on Begins and TDK, I have no idea why you thought Rises would be that. It sounds to me that you simply had unrealistic expectation that couldn't be met.
I don't know how to break this to you but if you're judging all movies to live up to Citizen Kane, you'll be sorely disappointed. And I only like Citizen Kane. I admit it's technical achievements and its masterful story telling and its significance of one of the most important movies of our time. But it is also a bit dark and depressing and predictable for my liking. I'm not knocking it, it is a perfect movie for what it is.
See, I've actually stated many time here on this bored that I really, really, don't like Citizen Kane. I think it's probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's great on a technical level, and is a good example of filmmaking, but I just don't like it.
And see, judging a movie on what it is is a good thing. That's be like judging cars on if it accomplishes what it set out to do, not what it is compared to Pixar's other efforts. And this tactic is really encouraged in film reviews, and it's something Ebert employs regularly, as it allows for a fairer examination of a film, but the moment you start comparing and contrasting you opinion of the film will widely change, as is necessary, and then all that's important is that you judge it using the same criteria for every single movie.
A fun action movie with engaging characters? I think that's what it was trying to be.
Good, then we agree. That's just not how you come off.
I haven't watched Prestige and Insomnia. Inception I liked. Memento was good until the ending ruined the movie.
Personal opinion! You're allowed to have this! It just goes over much better when you don't accuse them of being a ton of different things. It's okay for you to think the ending ruined Memento, i disagree, but I'm not going to argue with you on it unless you start calling it pretentious schlock or whatever. Civility can be just as fun as arguing.
Check out Prestige though. It's really good.I'm 22 and I hate it. Now who's generalizing?
Hate what? Superman? I'm confused. And duh, I'm generalizing. That's why I said "most people." I was making a blanket statement. That I would argue is true.
Really, I know what the marketing is going for and what sells. It doesn't mean I have to like it. Again, this whole dark character thing has been so overdone, it's become cliche. And the implication of that line is in really bad taste just to draw in the people who lap up the pseudopsychological stuff that come with Nolan films. Pus it just feels wrong for that line to be in a Superman movie.
Of course you don't have to like it, just so long as you understand the why.
And, once again, how do you know Supes is going to be a dark character? Don't imagine the movie before you see it. Try to go into it open, and you might just enjoy it.And yeah, no argument about the line. It didn't ruin it for me, or make me not want to see the movie like it did with Robby, but yeah it's bad.
[/hide]Wow. It took me a long time to type all of that.
I don't even have a TL;DR this time. -
Debate's fun to read, but I'm surprised the debate turned to Avengers vs Dark Knight Rises (well not that surprised since it's Nex and TLC but…)
This is just my two cents, but I think the better comparison would be Spiderman vs the Amazing Spiderman.
Now I don't know people's personal preferences about these movies (I'm mostly talking about the 2002 film instead of the entire Sam Raimi series) or the iconicness of Spiderman's personality, but I've heard critics talk about how in the Amazing Spiderman, Peter Parker didn't really feel like Peter Parker and he lost his iconic traits (ex. he's too much of a jerk/shirking responsibility), so I understand where Robby and TLC are coming from given that angle.
And once again, don't know much about he ultimate version of Spiderman that I think this was based off.
-
Ugh, I'm really not in the mood on arguing over a bunch of inane crap like the difference between diction and semantics and your excuses on why it's okay for you to act condescending. Excuse me while I cherry pick responses actually relevant to the argument.
@Nex:
Once again, WHY is that his character? You have to look at this as if Superman isn't an already established character!That's what an origin movie is all about. They don't go in assuming you never everything about the character! You have to assume that a good portion of your fanbase is young and has never really read that much Superman. If you don't then you're going to be alienating a portion of your audience.
But he is. If you made Batman as this happy, hyper fun guy, he's not Batman.
@Nex:
And how do you know that Man of Steel won't end up this way. You've already seen the movie in your mind, based on what the trailer gave you, and you filled it with everything you know you'd hate. I'd like to point to Supes voice-over at the end of the trailer again. He seems happy with where he is. I've already mentioned it, but I think the dark cinematography is meant to purposely contrast with Supes to make him stand out more, and I also wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of darkness in his past that made him the idealistic man he is.
My point is that you have no idea what this movie can be, so you need to stop acting like you do.I'm basing this on the trailer. And the fact that Christopher Nolan co-wrote it. And the poster. And the vibe I can't shake off that the tone is just coasting on the Nolan movies' successes. Hey, I could be wrong. I'm not hopeful though.
@Nex:
What flaws does it have, and why were the ones I listed not flaws? Please, expand.
Lack of character development for some characters but that was mostly because it was taken care of in their respective films. Predictability. Some scenes were indulgent in typical Joss Whedony fashion, evil shadowy council of doom. The story certainly made sense and the characters weren't shallow or stupid.
@Nex:
If this is what you mean, this say this!
This "That it was pretentious shlock with an overbloated plot, unmemorable characters, terrible writing and rehashed themes that didn't go anywhere? does not equal this "story is sacrificed where the plot ends up not making sense and the characters come off as shallow idiots." See, if story is sacrficed, how can you have an overbloated plot? If the characters are memorable for being shallow idiots, how are they unmemorable? Then you introduced 3 completely new ideas.
Don't pretend like I'm at some kind of fault here. You just need to learn to keep everything straight.Poor story=terrible writing
Unmemorable characters=bland characters=shallow characters
Again, read between the lines. I shouldn't have to hold your hand on this.
@Nex:
Thank you for giving me a chance to expand upon a point that I forgot to previously. You can't just say "go watch X" to an issue addressed in The Avengers. The Avengers needs to be able to be a contained film that can work completely on its on, and it is, essentially, it's just the characters motivations are heavily dependent on people having seen the previous films. Which, is understandable. But you still have to assume there is a portion of your audience who haven't seen any of them, and write to them.
Like you can watch The Empire Strikes Back and get every reference to a New Hope? The five movies before it were there for a reason. To take care of the majority of the build up and character development of the Avengers.
And even with that, you could still get Loki's motives with his talk with Thor. Go watch the movie again.
@Nex:
And far more complex? "I'm adopted whine, whine whine, I hate my father, whine, whine whine" (Oh My God I need that Ace picture.) "I should be king. And I hate you. Because I'm adopted!"
Apparently he was too complex for you if that's all you got out of him.
@Nex:
Seriously Loki, despite being tremendously performed, is a very weak character. Hiddleston gives him life no doubt, but on paper, he's just meh. He's slightly better written in The Avengers, but not by much.
What are you trying to say with "he's poor on paper"? The Avengers isn't a book, it's a movie. The contributions of the actor are part and parcel of the character, the nuances the actor gives, the emotion, the expressions. They're all part of what makes the character complex. The twist in Psycho where Norman Bates suddenly became the main character wouldn't have worked at all if the actor hadn't been so good.
@Nex:
Huzzah we have found middle ground on something! High Five! And I care, since you're talking about story being sacrificed an what-not. The entire plot hinges on this cube, and yet we really know nothing about it, other than, as previosuly stated, Magic! It's simply just there.
Story being sacrificed=poor writing. Not explaining what the cube is is not because it wasn't necessary for the story. Going into detail on how it works would have been pointless. It's a big bad ball of energy and the bad guys want it. That's all we needed to know.
@Nex:
Nope, I understand how it could be rewritten, (though I still have no issue with it, as Bats had already beaten him maybe a literal 5 minutes earlier, and Bane would have died had Talia not shown up. Doing it over would have been a redundant and time wasting. Bane was no longer the biggest threat. He needed to be taken out of the equation and fast and Catwoman needed redemption) I just saw no reason to doing so, and I still hold is was good way to finish him off. Perhaps not perfect, but good enough.
Hahaha, seriously? You say you understood how it could have been re-written…and then flat out show that you don't understand?
They could have written the first fight as the final fight and not have brought back Bane to be unceremoniously being killed by Catwoman and her cheesy one liner. They could have cut out Talia flat out (Lord knows her character amounted to nothing) and not pissed away Bane's character as nothing but a common thug. They could have done ANYTHING. The events did NOT need to play out with Bane coming back again after a unceremonious first defeat
@Nex:
What you seem to be using tone as is a broad genre, thus leading to genre-forgiveness, which is soemthign I mention with horror films. Thus my simple response to this is: you can't have different criteria for what makes a film good based on the genre it's in.You can however be like Ebert and judge a film based on what it is trying to accomplish in and of itself,
…that means the literal same thing.
@Nex:
but when you broaden your horizon to compare it to other films, not matter what genre, you have to judge them all the same.
But why would you want to? I realize Avengers isn't Citizen Kane. But I still love it more. So…? I'm judging the movie wrongly?
@Nex:
Thus you can't simply forgive plotholes just because it is a fun action movie.
No but you can be more forgiving. Less serious movies allow for more of a suspension of disbelief.
@Nex:
And what movie has ever professed this? Certainly not Rises.
Oh please.
@Nex:
If I recall, most people were simply saying it was the best of the series, and most reviews seemed to have problems with the plot. The film only has a rating of 8/10 on RT (which, funnily is the same that The Avengers has; I'm not trying to say anything just thought it was funny.) And if you watched the reviews, it was only the first that were overly positive, and as more came out it mellowed out. And I didn't read a sinle review that said it was shocking or thought provoking. I do remember reading a few that found it heavy handed.
You cannot expect me to believe that this movie wasn't meant to be taken seriously for its writing. The tone and the attempt at a complicated (more like convoluted) rebellion plot. So…what are you saying? That the movie's story was poor? Because I'd certainly agree with you on that.
@Nex:
Really. Batman not being able to break, not shatter, a broken down stone? Now who's being nitpicky? Yes a normal human wouldn't be able to break a stone with a single kick. But when has Batman been a normal human? Most of what he does a normal human can't do,
The entire point of the Nolan movies was to break down Batman into a human being. In this movie, he's a normal human with a bunch of money, he can't shatter concrete. Calling foul the rules of the world are broken isn't nitpicking.
@Nex:
Actually it does, as I'm arguing that The Avengers can be just as guilty as the things you accuse dark movies of being.
Avengers can't be a pretentious movie nor can any light toned movie. Only movies that try to act like they're deep and smart and complex can be this. You're arguing the impossible.
@Nex:
So yo're admitting that there are character flaws? Good, now you need to drop minor, because in a movie driven solely by its characters, any flaws with them are a fault on the movie. If you're going to rely on characters to move your narrative they need to be very strong, and in The Avengers they weren't.
They were fun, engaging, memorable, had interesting back stories, distinctive fighting styles. If you can describe a character without mentioning his appearance or profession, he's a strong character. Some minor nitpicks on inconsistent character development doesn't change this.
@Nex:
They were all there to tell jokes and fight.
That's all they needed to do. Bounce off each other and be awesome.
@Nex:
Finally some real discussion!
I wouldn't call the decision to fly the nuke out well contemplated. It was more of a necessity and he was the only one who could do it. He was essentially forced into the situation. Yes he could have just run away, but Stark, hasn't been that man since the start of IM1.
But why was Stark's character in question? I'll tell you: because he's the most popular of the bunch, so he had to be the face of the movie thus they needed a character arc for him, so they nerfed his previous development and just rehashed the sacrifice play.
Also, his decision in the first movie wasn't a reckless impulse. It's what he saw as the only option out after having tried everything else. He didn't just have Pepper overload it, he put thought into it. In fact I'd call it a more thought out plan than grabbing a nuke and flying it out of the city.The movie made an effort of focusing on that aspect of Tony's character in a way the first movie didn't giving it a completely different feeling of significance. What Tony did in the first movie doesn't negate the character arc or the genuine feelings of the character.
@Nex:
Once again, see my argument about everything needing to be self contained.
Once again, see my argument above.
@Nex:
And yes a character must develop throughout the course of a movie! That is basic writing 101! If you have a character who ends the movie the same way he started it then there has been no character development!
If the characters are just fun and there for jokes, then yes, it'll be good for a couple of watches, but there's no depth, and thus no staying power. Yes, the interactions were fantastic, and that's what holds the film together. But you can only listen to the same joke so many times before it's not funny anymore. And yes it is a flaw because this isn't a story driven movie, it's character driven, and Thor is without a doubt the weakest link here.
No matter what kind of story you're telling, character development is a must.We got a lot of character development in the first five movies. That was their point. The purpose of the movie is just seeing these awesome guys have an adventure together and just be awesome.
With that said, we still got a substantial amount of development. Thor was the weakest in terms of character development true but it was there with the conflict with his brother.
@Nex:
See I kind of get that. I do. It's obvious he wants to help people from the start. What I don't get is why his problems with SHIELD seem to disappear and he's all happy-happy-joy-joy. I get him feeling like he needs to go help. Sort of, and a lot of that really is subtext, but nothing in his actions prior to when he shows up in the city really reflects that. Banner and the Hulk were easily my favorite part of the movie though, so take that for what you will.
Does the movie need to spell out every single thing for you? Yes, a lot of it is subtext. So what? It's still there.
@Nex:
See the thing is, they all would have worked together in the end anyway, because none of them would have let Loki win. My issue is really in the execution. Fury's push only affected 2 of the team. Widow and Hawkeye were doing their jobs. Thor was still just pursuing his brother. Banner was the only one who consciously made the decision to fight on his own accord.
The Avengers were formed by the end of the movie no doubt, and they'll probably work together fine in the sequel, but it just feels strange for them all to go from fighting each other on the ship to being best friends after the fight with Loki. And the biggest reason it feels this way is the lack of character development. Only 3 people ever seem to bond with one another, Stark and Banner, and Stark and Cap. Widow and Hawkeye don't ever feel like part of the team and neither does Thor.They all had their own personal motives. The fact is at the end of the day, they were able to put aside their differences and work together as a team. That's all that needed to be done. Mission accomplished, build up paid off.
@Nex:
Last I checked you're paying the same price for all of these if you see them in theaters.
And I pay the price for different reasons.
@Nex:
And that's still a poor stance to have. You should expect the best product you can receive. That's the only way to increase the quality of what Hollywood puts out. The biggest reason I got into the industry is because I want to bring some respectability back to the horror genre, because I'm sick of people labeling Silence of the Lambs a "psychological thriller" because they're too embarrassed by the genre to call it what it is: a horror movie.
And I do. I get the best action movie. The best Tarantino movie. The best Jackie Chan movie.
@Nex:
You really need to expand your horizons a bit if you think only darker movies give a more intelligent story and realistic characters. Check out Moonrise Kingdom if you haven't. It's a light hearted feel-good comedy by Wes Anderson and it's still the smartest thing I've seen this year, and all the characters are very realistic.
Where did I say this? I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. That light hearted movies are capable of having dark moments while still being faithful to their tone. My problem is that most dark movie tries to give an intelligent story and realistic characters and fail because they tried to hard to be dramatic.
@Nex:
See, based on Begins and TDK, I have no idea why you thought Rises would be that. It sounds to me that you simply had unrealistic expectation that couldn't be met.
My expectations were too high that I expected a good story and interesting characters?
@Nex:
See, I've actually stated many time here on this bored that I really, really, don't like Citizen Kane. I think it's probably the most overrated movie of all time. It's great on a technical level, and is a good example of filmmaking, but I just don't like it.
And see, judging a movie on what it is is a good thing. That's be like judging cars on if it accomplishes what it set out to do, not what it is compared to Pixar's other efforts. And this tactic is really encouraged in film reviews, and it's something Ebert employs regularly, as it allows for a fairer examination of a film, but the moment you start comparing and contrasting you opinion of the film will widely change, as is necessary, and then all that's important is that you judge it using the same criteria for every single movie.
But you need to compare it to movies within the same genre to see how right it can be done. That's what it means to judge it for what it is.
@Nex:
Hate what? Superman? I'm confused. And duh, I'm generalizing. That's why I said "most people." I was making a blanket statement. That I would argue is true.Of course you don't have to like it, just so long as you understand the why.
I hate the trailer and the tone it indicates.
@Nex:
And, once again, how do you know Supes is going to be a dark character? Don't imagine the movie before you see it. Try to go into it open, and you might just enjoy it.
And yeah, no argument about the line. It didn't ruin it for me, or make me not want to see the movie like it did with Robby, but yeah it's bad.
I could. But again, track record. Not very hopeful.
-
Debate's fun to read, but I'm surprised the debate turned to Avengers vs Dark Knight Rises (well not that surprised since it's Nex and TLC but…)
I really wasn't trying for this. If he'd name another movie he loves outside of the super hero genre, I'd see what I could do with that. And I really don't see the point of Avengers vs Rises as I love them both, they both have flaws, and I don't really like one more than the other.
This is just my two cents, but I think the better comparison would be Spiderman vs the Amazing Spiderman.
Now I don't know people's personal preferences about these movies (I'm mostly talking about the 2002 film instead of the entire Sam Raimi series) or the iconicness of Spiderman's personality, but I've heard critics talk about how in the Amazing Spiderman, Peter Parker didn't really feel like Peter Parker and he lost his iconic traits (ex. he's too much of a jerk/shirking responsibility), so I understand where Robby and TLC are coming from given that angle.
I prefer Amazing to the '02 flick. Though that's largely in part to their butchering of The Green Goblin, the man who is not only my favorite Spidey villain, but my all time favorite comic book villain. Also Dunst was terrible and Maguire was a good (if not way too old) Peter but a poor Spidey. Franco was Franco. Dafoe however was fun.
Amazing got the casting all right. Stone was great, and so was Garfield. I think he was a good Peter balancing the awkwardness and the sudden confusion at what was happening to him very well. I can understand the jerk thing, as he did seem like that at times, but so did Maguire's. -
I always hated Dafoe's Gobby, he played it way too cartoony for my liking.
-
Osborn is basically a cartoon villain though.
-
@Nex:
I prefer Amazing to the '02 flick. Though that's largely in part to their butchering of The Green Goblin, the man who is not only my favorite Spidey villain, but my all time favorite comic book villain. Also Dunst was terrible and Maguire was a good (if not way too old) Peter but a poor Spidey. Franco was Franco. Dafoe however was fun.
Amazing got the casting all right. Stone was great, and so was Garfield. I think he was a good Peter balancing the awkwardness and the sudden confusion at what was happening to him very well. I can understand the jerk thing, as he did seem like that at times, but so did Maguire's.I was introduced to the Green Goblin by the Sam Raimi film, but the Green Goblin worked for me just because his delivery was so ham-fisted I never thought it was meant to be taken too seriously and just meant to be taken as a fun villain (though I understand people complaining about the Goblin).
For Garfield vs Macguire, I understand faults from both actors, but I at least felt Maguire was easier to root for, and I never really got the jerk nature of Peter in Maguire's performance, or at least to the extent that it's like Garfield where Garfield's jerkishness seems to be a big part of his character where he will evolve into a responsible person, while Maguire does bad things like any human does, but he doesn't mean to be malicious (his timidness in future films/sequels hurt him though but for Spider Man 1? Completely fine).
-
And once again, don't know much about he ultimate version of Spiderman that I think this was based off.
Ultimte Spider-Man is much more like Raimi's trilogy than it is Amazing Spider-Man.
-
Osborn is basically a cartoon villain though.
Well, his 60's self is. His modern incarnation is a sociopathic, manipulative mad man who gains control of his goblin persona.
-
Well, his 60's self is. His modern incarnation is a sociopathic, manipulative mad man who gains control of his goblin persona.
He gains control of it for 20 minutes before he becomes a cackling villain again.
Or has sex with Gwen Stacy.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Or creates an elaborate plan involving a billion clones, making Peter believe he's not real himself and replacing Aunt May with a dying actress.
-
I did my best to try and keep this mostly short. (I obviously failed.) If this continues we just really need to drop The Avengers and Rises stuff and focus on the genre/tone/discussion.
[hide]
@Thousand:
Ugh, I'm really not in the mood on arguing over a bunch of inane crap like the difference between diction and semantics
Because you were wrong.
and your excuses on why it's okay for you to act condescending. Excuse me while I cherry pick responses actually relevant to the argument.
But it's okay for you to be condescending, right? Would you rather I just make various passes at insulting your intelligence like a normal anonymous user on the internet would? Alright, I will.
But he is. If you made Batman as this happy, hyper fun guy, he's not Batman.
DEAR GOD, "WHY" IS THE FUCKING QUESTION. You can't just say because. If you don't have a fucking answer don't bother trying to run in circles. Did Nolan start off Begins with Batman being Batman. No he fucking showed WHY he is Batman. What about both Spiderman (02) and Amazing Spiderman? They both gave the WHY. Whether you like it or not this is an origin story and the WHY has to be explained. You can't just tell your audience "he's this because he is."
(So how'd I do, was I mean enough?"
I'm basing this on the trailer. And the fact that Christopher Nolan co-wrote it. And the poster. And the vibe I can't shake off that the tone is just coasting on the Nolan movies' successes. Hey, I could be wrong. I'm not hopeful though.
At least your feigning acknowledgement that you could be wrong. I'll take what I can get.
Poor story=terrible writing
Where the fuck did you pull this from? You said "overbloated plot" and "story is sacrificed If there is little story the plot cannot be bloated. In case you forgot bloated means overly full.
Unmemorable characters=bland characters=shallow characters
Again, read between the lines. I shouldn't have to hold your hand on this.
Unmemorable character = forgettable fucking characters. Shallow is a personality trait. Characters exist who were purposely written to be shallow, that's still a memorable character. An unmemorable character is like any character in any recent horror movie that are just there for a body count. A bland character. But shallow does not equal bland.
Like you can watch The Empire Strikes Back and get every reference to a New Hope? The five movies before it were there for a reason. To take care of the majority of the build up and character development of the Avengers.
For the most part, yes. They reintroduce ideas, mention things that happened last time, and make it easy to get into the film. The whole goal of a series is to get a new audience with each release, thus to make more money, and to do that you have to make your movie accessible. You don't have to give them everything, but when you have to tell someone they have to go watch another movie to understand a character, there's an issue.
And even with that, you could still get Loki's motives with his talk with Thor. Go watch the movie again.
Yeah and his motives are: [insert emo ace picture here]
Apparently he was too complex for you if that's all you got out of him.
No, see, you're trying to make him complex for the sake of this argument. His motives are just as deep and complex as Red Skull's and what's his face from IM2.
What are you trying to say with "he's poor on paper"? The Avengers isn't a book, it's a movie.
You do realize that all movies start with someone writing this thing called a script, right? See it's the movie written out. Dialogue, actions. all character motives and development happen on paper.
The contributions of the actor are part and parcel of the character, the nuances the actor gives, the emotion, the expressions. They're all part of what makes the character complex. The twist in Psycho where Norman Bates suddenly became the main character wouldn't have worked at all if the actor hadn't been so good.
No, they're not, they're what bring the character to life. If the character is not complex on the page, he's not going to be just because the actor gives him emotions, most of which are detailed in the script anyways. A good actor will always make their character better, there is no doubt about that, but that still doesn't change what the character is on paper..
Story being sacrificed=poor writing.
No. Story being sacrificed leads to poor writing. They're not equivalent. After all you can have poor writing in a movie with lots of story. And a movie with good writing can have story being sacrificed (The Avengers.)
Not explaining what the cube is is not because it wasn't necessary for the story. Going into detail on how it works would have been pointless. It's a big bad ball of energy and the bad guys want it. That's all we needed to know.
No need to go into detail on how it works, a quick sentence would suffice. You should however explain why the bad guys want it. I mean, they are invading Earth to get it.
Hahaha, seriously? You say you understood how it could have been re-written…and then flat out show that you don't understand?
They could have written the first fight as the final fight and not have brought back Bane to be unceremoniously being killed by Catwoman and her cheesy one liner. They could have cut out Talia flat out (Lord knows her character amounted to nothing) and not pissed away Bane's character as nothing but a common thug. They could have done ANYTHING. The events did NOT need to play out with Bane coming back again after a unceremonious first defeat
So basically, it should have been a different movie, right? I get moving the fight, but Talia needed a reason to reveal herself.
And how was Bane's first defeat unceremonious? That's how Bane always loses. His mask being broken is the movie's version of detaching his venom. That was the only way for Batman to physically beat him.…that means the literal same thing.
No it doesn't. See my Cars example again.
But why would you want to? I realize Avengers isn't Citizen Kane. But I still love it more. So…? I'm judging the movie wrongly?
No, but you're judging it unfairly compared to other things. My favorite movie is The Nightmare Before Christmas. Do I think it's the best movie ever? Not even close (though I do think it the finest example of stop-motion animation.) However, I do understand it's flaws. In and of itself I think it exceeds in every way, and I judge it based on itself.
However when I'm, let's say, comparing Avengers and Rises, I can judge each individually on what it set out to do and how it accomplished its goals, but when comparing the two, I can't do that. I have to have a universal set of criteria that I judge both movies on. So even though there is no reason to compare The Avengers to Citizen Kane, if you were to do so, ou'd have to do so fairly.Less serious movies allow for more of a suspension of disbelief.
Absolutely. It's what we always do with action movies. We have to suspend our disbelief that not one of those goons could shoot Bond or whatever other action hero. It's inherent to the genre.
But suspending your disbelief is not the same as being forgiven. I can suspend my disbelief that Stark should have died and that the Hulk roaring somehow brought him back. There's nothing wrong there. However I can't suspend disbelief at say a plothole, because if it were something that could allow for suspension of disbelief then it wouldn't be a plothole, it be the writer asking for the audience's trust.Oh please.
When did Nolan every say anything along those lines?
You cannot expect me to believe that this movie wasn't meant to be taken seriously for its writing. The tone and the attempt at a complicated (more like convoluted) rebellion plot. So…what are you saying? That the movie's story was poor? Because I'd certainly agree with you on that.
I think it's more of an Inception-like instance where the audience is making the soty seem much more complicated than it is: Talia wants revenge for her father's death, so she enlists the help of Bane to take control of Gotham and make Bruce suffer as the city he loves dies. That's it. Talia pretended to be someone else to get close to Bruce, and Bane created an obviously false movement to make the city turn on itself Lord of the Flies style. Very simple. Yes it did get bogged down at times because the pacing was frantic (another half hour to the runtime and there'd have been no issue here.
The entire point of the Nolan movies was to break down Batman into a human being. In this movie, he's a normal human with a bunch of money, he can't shatter concrete. Calling foul the rules of the world are broken isn't nitpicking.
The movies established back in Begins that Bruce wasn't exactly normal. After all, he took down the entire league of shadows after a few months of training and before even becoming Batman. He catches on fire and falls several stories to the ground and is pretty much fine. In TDK he jumps several stories and lands on the roof of a van, crushing it, and walks away fine. Batman was the established exception to the rule.
Avengers can't be a pretentious movie nor can any light toned movie. Only movies that try to act like they're deep and smart and complex can be this. You're arguing the impossible.
Light-hearted movies can be pretentious? Are you serious?? Have you ever seen Across the Universe? Our Idiot Brother? Avatar? Pretentiousness doesn't come from the "tone" it comes from the writer.
They were fun, engaging, memorable, had interesting back stories, distinctive fighting styles. If you can describe a character without mentioning his appearance or profession, he's a strong character. Some minor nitpicks on inconsistent character development doesn't change this.
I believe the only character to have his backstory at all shown in The Avengers is Caps, so that's out.
And yes, they're strong, I haven't denied that, have I?
However, they don't develop at all during the course of the film. And, as I said, in a movie that relies on its characters, that's a long term downside.The movie made an effort of focusing on that aspect of Tony's character in a way the first movie didn't giving it a completely different feeling of significance. What Tony did in the first movie doesn't negate the character arc or the genuine feelings of the character.
Really, the whole point of the first movie was his transformation for asshole to hero. It was the main focus.
And yeah, let's look at it in the confines of The Avengers. What in the movie shows he wouldn't be the guy to make the hero play. We already know he's trying for clean energy, so he can't be that bad a guy.
Basically his whole "arc" comes down to Cap making an unfounded accusation and him going nuh-uh look at me and this nuke.We got a lot of character development in the first five movies. That was their point. The purpose of the movie is just seeing these awesome guys have an adventure together and just be awesome.
You don't seem to get it, you can't have a story where people don't change! It's a basic necessity. And in this, no one changed. Something happened, they came together saved the day, and went on their way. It was fun and awesome, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's about as bare as you can get.
This is going to hurt the movie in the long run. You might not see it now, but looking back on it 10 years from now it will not hold up.With that said, we still got a substantial amount of development. Thor was the weakest in terms of character development true but it was there with the conflict with his brother.
It's still unclear to me where any of this development is at. And you mean the conflict with his brother that stayed the same from beginning to end, and amounted to "I have to stop him."
Does the movie need to spell out every single thing for you? Yes, a lot of it is subtext. So what? It's still there.
Subtext can only be a successful tool when it's reinforcing an idea already presented through dialogue or actions. Otherwise you just asking your audience to read into things that aren't there.
Where did I say this? I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. That light hearted movies are capable of having dark moments while still being faithful to their tone. My problem is that most dark movie tries to give an intelligent story and realistic characters and fail because they tried to hard to be dramatic.
And I quote "I watch a darker movie because I want a more intelligent story and realistic characters."
My expectations were too high that I expected a good story and interesting characters?
Moreso because of this "and personal sacrifice and overcoming oppression"
But still, having seen Begins and TDK, I don't know why you thought it would be more than those.
But you need to compare it to movies within the same genre to see how right it can be done. That's what it means to judge it for what it is.
Judging something for what it is, is more of judging a film on its own goals, and how well it succeeded. The biggest issue with judging by genre, is that you can have to movies (like The Avengers and Rises) that fall into the same genre but are incredibly different.
I could. But again, track record. Not very hopeful.
You should give it a chance, all I'm saying.
[/hide]
You know what would be a fun experiment? Switching sides. Not to brag, but I bet I could pick apart Rises better and more ruthlessly than you could Avengers.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I always hated Dafoe's Gobby, he played it way too cartoony for my liking.
Which is actually why I was okay with him! While they did terrible unspeakable things to Gobby, he always captured the crazy over the top side. He also had some really good malicious undertones to. I could totally see him dropping Gwen off a bridge.
-
Lol at Thousand Lion chans"DARK= REALISM".
-
Comparing Avengers with Dark Knight Rises is ridiculous. They are two difficult films in tone/presentation with completely separate objectives/purposes within the narrative and characters. It's like comparing Bioshock with Call of Duty. Both are a shooter, but seek to accomplish different tasks with a particular genre.
-
Avengers succeeded in what it tried to accomplish, while TDKR failed at it.
-
Comparing Avengers with Dark Knight Rises is ridiculous. They are two difficult films in tone/presentation with completely separate objectives/purposes within the narrative and characters. It's like comparing Bioshock with Call of Duty. Both are a shooter, but seek to accomplish different tasks with a particular genre.
What the fuck? Are you kidding me? Dark Knight Rises is perfectly comparable to Avengers, since Rises and Avengers are both action packed superhero movies, the difference is that one fools people into thinking that being dark is depthful, while the other is lighthearted, roller coaster right that doesn't take itself too seriously. They both have silly one liners, fan-service, and eye candy visuals.
And bombs.
They have the same purposes: To entertain. They're both escapists blockbuster films that many kids/teens flag too.
-
For Garfield vs Macguire, I understand faults from both actors, but I at least felt Maguire was easier to root for, and I never really got the jerk nature of Peter in Maguire's performance, or at least to the extent that it's like Garfield where Garfield's jerkishness seems to be a big part of his character where he will evolve into a responsible person, while Maguire does bad things like any human does, but he doesn't mean to be malicious (his timidness in future films/sequels hurt him though but for Spider Man 1? Completely fine).
Dunno how we got to Spidey but okay.
Although many seem to critize Tobey, I however loved him him in Spidey 2. I did also in the first, but there I felt like every character was too much a cartoon version of their characters. Like, Mary Jane's hair was overly orange compared to the second one, and Tobey too geeky. Its like a first episode of a sitcom where everyone tries to make their roles clear. In the second Spidey I felt for his pain. I felt for how hard his life had become. Yes, he might not be the Spidey in the comics, but dunno, he felt genuine, he felt real and a truly a good hearted person.He wasnt over the top. Even when he was waiting outside the opera or whatev, and he heard a lady play a Spidey song, and then he raised his eyebrows, I agreed.
Though I also loved Garfields Spidey, but I thought they tried to do too much, ans obviously the story was too cramped in. Also, he's somewhat a jerk and too cool.
-
What the fuck? Are you kidding me? Dark Knight Rises is perfectly comparable to Avengers, since Rises and Avengers are both action packed superhero movies, the difference is that one fools people into thinking that being dark is depthful, while the other is lighthearted, roller coaster right that doesn't take itself too seriously. They both have silly one liners, fan-service, and eye candy visuals.
And bombs.
They have the same purposes: To entertain. They're both escapists blockbuster films that many kids/teens flag too.
Unfortunately you just read the first part of my post and completely disregarded the rest. Please PLEASE read the post this time.
In a VERY superficial level, yes they are similar. But the intention and presentation behind each movie is quite different. Allow me to define intention for you:"Intention"> a plan or aim for something.
Nolan had a particular agenda that different from Wheadon's (obviously). Simply due to the difference in intention, the execution was different. Obviously if Wheadon was directing the new batman trilogy, we would have a completely different product (visa versa with Nolan doing Avengers…lol that would be weird.)
The intention behind both movies are quite obvious:
(1)Nolan wanted to create a different sort of super hero narrative that tries to follow some sense of realism. He also emphasized more on drama, a lengthier narrative (like not seeing the Bat for almost 30 minutes in Rises), and so on. However, Nolan obviously added action scenes, super hero-esque fantasy moments, BUT they seemed secondary compared to his intention to create that whole "moody" drama narrative. Whether it is good or bad...it is none of my concern.
(2)Wheadon wanted to create an action packed super hero. This is very clear when his narrative is slightly weaker, character development less apparent, but his special effects/action sequences more frequent and over the top. It is clear to me that Wheadon was far more invested in creating a "fun" action movie with drama (or narrative in general) taking the back seat.Obviously both movies, as a super-hero genre, will be a blockbuster action-packed film with over the top scenes (that is STAPLE of the super hero genre). However, Nolan and Wheadon have different intentions in what they wanted to do with their movie. Comparing both is ridiculous, but they both obviously wanted to accomplish something different.
Let me refer to my metaphor again, but be more explicit for those that kinda skim through my posts.
-Bioshock and Call of Duty. Both are shooters with similar elements within the genre (you have a gun and you shoot people with it, they utilize a linear gameplay, etc...). However, the intention behind each game is different. The former attempts to create a narrative with elements of the shooter genre (hence, the shooting mechanics are less emphasized compared to a "stronger" narrative) while the latter focuses less on honing in the mechanics of the shooter genre and focus less on a strong narrative. This is a terrible example, but I can't think of a good one (besides I hate COD). It is silly to compare both since they are so obviously different based on their intentions. The similarities are there, but they are very superficial (just like yours). -
! @Nex:
! > Because you were wrong.
! You had conceded you were picking on my choice of words rather than the actual argument. But then you started arguing semantics about the word semantics. I think that argument was done.
! @Nex:
! > But it's okay for you to be condescending, right? Would you rather I just make various passes at insulting your intelligence like a normal anonymous user on the internet would? Alright, I will.
! This is how I talk. Brash but to the point. Ask anyone. A little banter is expected in an argument. I don't make giant shows propping my opponent like a science experiment, going on a tangent on the backfire effect or whatever it's called. Just stick to the facts.
! @Nex:
! > DEAR GOD, "WHY" IS THE FUCKING QUESTION. You can't just say because. If you don't have a fucking answer don't bother trying to run in circles. Did Nolan start off Begins with Batman being Batman. No he fucking showed WHY he is Batman. What about both Spiderman (02) and Amazing Spiderman? They both gave the WHY. Whether you like it or not this is an origin story and the WHY has to be explained. You can't just tell your audience "he's this because he is."
! Where did I say that we shouldn't have origin stories? My issue was that the final product has to be faithful to the story. No matter the path Superman takes he has to be Superman in the end. He can't be depressed and melancholy like Batman.
! How do I know this Superman won't be faithful in the end? I don't. Maybe he will. I'm just not very hopeful and a few words spoken by the character at the end of the trailer isn't going to change that.
! @Nex:
! > At least your feigning acknowledgement that you could be wrong. I'll take what I can get.
! I never made a claim that this movie was going to be 100% SUCKSORZ. I think my exact words were along the lines of movies like this "tend" to be so and so. I could be surprised. Again, track record.
! @Nex:
! > Where the fuck did you pull this from? You said "overbloated plot" and "story is sacrificed If there is little story the plot cannot be bloated. In case you forgot bloated means overly full.
! @Nex:
! > Unmemorable character = forgettable fucking characters. Shallow is a personality trait. Characters exist who were purposely written to be shallow, that's still a memorable character. An unmemorable character is like any character in any recent horror movie that are just there for a body count. A bland character. But shallow does not equal bland.
! I'm going to put all this under nitpicking about my "diction" again. From what I know, overbloated means there are too many plot lines running around for a movie to contain. When I said sacrificing story, I was referring to the quality of the story not the amount. Because the writers were more interested in throwing as many dramatic elements as possible without thinking how to put them together. Unmemorable characters, as I understand it, doesn't just refer to random fodder A. It also refers to boring characters. Characters that are so bland and uninteresting, that you couldn't give a crap to remember them. At least that's how I understand it.
! If you have a problem with my choice of words, tough beans. Maybe you should have based your argument on solid facts instead of subjectively interpreted word usage.
! @Nex:
! > For the most part, yes. They reintroduce ideas, mention things that happened last time, and make it easy to get into the film. The whole goal of a series is to get a new audience with each release, thus to make more money, and to do that you have to make your movie accessible. You don't have to give them everything, but when you have to tell someone they have to go watch another movie to understand a character, there's an issue.
! You could understand the character just fine. The Thor movie is useful in adding more depth and context to the character but you could easily get what I described from the Avengers movie alone.
! @Nex:
! > Yeah and his motives are: [insert emo ace picture here]No, see, you're trying to make him complex for the sake of this argument. His motives are just as deep and complex as Red Skull's and what's his face from IM2.
! I don't know what else to say. If that's all you got out of the character, you weren't paying enough attention.
! @Nex:
! > You do realize that all movies start with someone writing this thing called a script, right? See it's the movie written out. Dialogue, actions. all character motives and development happen on paper.
! Yes and you do realize that we watch the movie not read the script right?
! @Nex:
! > No, they're not, they're what bring the character to life. If the character is not complex on the page, he's not going to be just because the actor gives him emotions, most of which are detailed in the script anyways. A good actor will always make their character better, there is no doubt about that, but that still doesn't change what the character is on paper..
! But we don't read the paper. Actors can have a lot of input on the direction of the character. It was Harrison Ford who came up with the "I know." line in Empire Strikes back. They have a say in the final product and can give a completely different light to a character. Yes, a bad actor could have made out Loki to be nothing but a whiny baby. But we got Tom Hiddleston and his fantastic acting, his subtle performance, his composure all added together to make this interesting character with a lot of depth . Someone who had a deeper, emotional core. Someone who at the surface desires power but underneath, because of the choice of words and subtle performance hints (and I'm talking anvil sized hints here) that there is underlying reason for his desire for power, not just to subject others to his will but to finally gain the for want of a better word acceptance he desired.
! But even if we took the character's desire for power as just that, a desire for power, the acting still throws a different light to it. We see his frustration, his anguish and we can't help but understand and even root for the character despite the atrocities he committed.
! The character's desire may be simple but there's a lot of emotional baggage that goes with it.
! Oh and just wondering, how do you know how much the script contributed to the final character, have you read the script? Can you send it my way?
! @Nex:
! > No. Story being sacrificed leads to poor writing. They're not equivalent. After all you can have poor writing in a movie with lots of story. And a movie with good writing can have story being sacrificed (The Avengers.)
! Arguing about diction again?
! @Nex:
! > No need to go into detail on how it works, a quick sentence would suffice. You should however explain why the bad guys want it. I mean, they are invading Earth to get it.
! Who cares? Maybe they wanted it to build nukes to blow up other dimensions like the humans did. They're a war mongering race after all. Unless those alien nukes would have actually have an impact on the story, it would have been pointless to mention them.
! @Nex:
! > So basically, it should have been a different movie, right?
! I wish it were. But seriously, yes, you could rewrite and rewind as much as you wanted. At least rewrite that final act. And maybe cut out the stupid cops who rushed with batons against a group of mercenaries with Uzis while you're at it.
! @Nex:
! > I get moving the fight, but Talia needed a reason to reveal herself.
! But did we need Talia? The fact that you're insisting on her character like she couldn't not be in the movie indicates to me that maybe you still don't understand.
! @Nex:
! > And how was Bane's first defeat unceremonious? That's how Bane always loses. His mask being broken is the movie's version of detaching his venom. That was the only way for Batman to physically beat him.
! All of Bane's martial art moves and training he displayed in the first fight went out the window, Batman just beat him by punching him in the face in the same spot over and over again. He couldn't dodge or something? That whole fight was pathetic with clunky and awkward camera angles and poor fight choreography.
! More importantly, all those hints and undertones of a deeper theme underlying the fight went out the window because it really just became about "I HAVE UR CITY!" "I WANT IT BACK!" Oh and "WEREZ THE TRIGGER!?!"
! @Nex:
! > No it doesn't. See my Cars example again.What you seem to be using tone as is a broad genre, thus leading to genre-forgiveness, which is soemthign I mention with horror films. Thus my simple response to this is: you can't have different criteria for what makes a film good based on the genre it's in.You can however be like Ebert and judge a film based on what it is trying to accomplish in and of itself,
! Judging movies on what they're trying to accomplish=having different criteria for what makes a movie good.
! You're judging them for what they are and that depends on the criteria those movies have to fulfill. What was the criteria for the Avengers to be good? To be a fun action movie with fun, interesting characters. What was the criteria for DKR to be good? To be a smart thriller with deep, interesting characters. Only one of these movies fulfilled their criteria.
! @Nex:
! > No, but you're judging it unfairly compared to other things. My favorite movie is The Nightmare Before Christmas. Do I think it's the best movie ever? Not even close (though I do think it the finest example of stop-motion animation.) However, I do understand it's flaws. In and of itself I think it exceeds in every way, and I judge it based on itself.
However when I'm, let's say, comparing Avengers and Rises, I can judge each individually on what it set out to do and how it accomplished its goals, but when comparing the two, I can't do that. I have to have a universal set of criteria that I judge both movies on. So even though there is no reason to compare The Avengers to Citizen Kane, if you were to do so, ou'd have to do so fairly.
! But you can't compare the two on some universal indicator because they're trying to be different. You can only compare them on what each movie set out to do and how well they accomplished their goals. Which type of film you like better is up to whether you're more of a comedy fan or an action fan or whatever. However you can directly compare movies with the same tone. That's how you know what the movie is trying to be.
! Avengers never wanted to be anything but a fun roller coaster ride. DKR tried to be this deep mystery thriller and failed abysmally because it also tried to be like Avengers with all that silly action but that doesn't work with the tone and just makes it come off stupid.
! @Nex:
! > Absolutely. It's what we always do with action movies. We have to suspend our disbelief that not one of those goons could shoot Bond or whatever other action hero. It's inherent to the genre.
But suspending your disbelief is not the same as being forgiven. I can suspend my disbelief that Stark should have died and that the Hulk roaring somehow brought him back. There's nothing wrong there. However I can't suspend disbelief at say a plothole, because if it were something that could allow for suspension of disbelief then it wouldn't be a plothole, it be the writer asking for the audience's trust.
! Suspending disbelief is how much you can roll with the movie until you've had enough. That includes being forgiving of minor plot holes. You roll with it because the movie aims to entertain with action scenes and not the depth of the story. Of course you had have bad action movies like Michael Bay films that have too much stupid in them.
! @Nex:
! > When did Nolan every say anything along those lines?I think it's more of an Inception-like instance where the audience is making the soty seem much more complicated than it is: Talia wants revenge for her father's death, so she enlists the help of Bane to take control of Gotham and make Bruce suffer as the city he loves dies. That's it. Talia pretended to be someone else to get close to Bruce, and Bane created an obviously false movement to make the city turn on itself Lord of the Flies style. Very simple. Yes it did get bogged down at times because the pacing was frantic (another half hour to the runtime and there'd have been no issue here.
! The story was meant to be taken seriously as an intricate plot with deep underlying themes political or otherwise. It's why we got the tyrannical take over of the city an the callback to the Occupation Wall Street movement and the Pit and all the talk about personal sacrifice and the darkness of the soul and Catwoman's talk on how the rich are such bastards and Alfred's motives for abandoning Bruce etc. etc. The problem is that all these themes and plot elements were poorly written and put together and were ultimately superfluous to the main plot because the movie just became about some dumb bitch and her daddy issues. Christopher Nolan wants to be taken as a serious film maker…yet he gave one of the dumbest plots I've ever seen.
! @Nex:
! > The movies established back in Begins that Bruce wasn't exactly normal. After all, he took down the entire league of shadows after a few months of training and before even becoming Batman. He catches on fire and falls several stories to the ground and is pretty much fine. In TDK he jumps several stories and lands on the roof of a van, crushing it, and walks away fine. Batman was the established exception to the rule.
! He also fell off a building in the DK and spent 7 years with a limp and had to get a leg enhancement thingy. And he got his back broken yet managed to heal himself after a few months with a lot of push ups. This isn't an exception to a rule, this is blatant inconsistency to the established rules of the world and is completely fair to call bullshit on.
! @Nex:
! > Light-hearted movies can be pretentious? Are you serious?? Have you ever seen Across the Universe? Our Idiot Brother? Avatar? Pretentiousness doesn't come from the "tone" it comes from the writer.
! That's a…good point. I only saw Avatar from your list but yeah...
! It seems to be more the exception than the rule though. I've seen lots of movies and rarely do I find a light hearted movie that tries to be anything more than what it is. It's far more common for a dark movie to try and be deep and fails spectacularly at it.
! @Nex:
! > I believe the only character to have his backstory at all shown in The Avengers is Caps, so that's out.
! The very POINT of the previous five movies was to show all the back stories of the characters so they wouldn't have to do so n the Avengers. Because they wouldn't have room in the story to do so. So no, you can't just cut them out.
! @Nex:
! > And yes, they're strong, I haven't denied that, have I?
! You seemed to be implying as much.
! @Nex:
! > However, they don't develop at all during the course of the film. And, as I said, in a movie that relies on its characters, that's a long term downside.
! Yes they did, some more than others. How did you go from only Thor got to no development to all of them by the way?
! @Nex:
! > Really, the whole point of the first movie was his transformation for asshole to hero. It was the main focus.
And yeah, let's look at it in the confines of The Avengers. What in the movie shows he wouldn't be the guy to make the hero play. We already know he's trying for clean energy, so he can't be that bad a guy.
Basically his whole "arc" comes down to Cap making an unfounded accusation and him going nuh-uh look at me and this nuke.
! Not being a bad guy doesn't mean being a saint. Tony wants to do the right thing sure but he was also a guy who treated everything like a game and never really experienced loss, or deliberately decide to make the hero play. He admitted as much that he would rather cut the wire. The first movie was more about him becoming a good guy that does the right thing than someone who can truly make the really hard decisions when it counts. Avengers focused more on that aspect.
! @Nex:
! > You don't seem to get it, you can't have a story where people don't change! It's a basic necessity. And in this, no one changed. Something happened, they came together saved the day, and went on their way. It was fun and awesome, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's about as bare as you can get.
This is going to hurt the movie in the long run. You might not see it now, but looking back on it 10 years from now it will not hold up.
! John McClane never grew as a character in Die Hard. We still loved and rooted for him and Die Hard is still the greatest action movie of all time. The point of character growth is to make us, the audience root for the character, there's no rule book that says a character has to grow just because. There's a reason for it. But when we have characters that we've seen already grow and who we're already rooting for? We just needed awesome characters being awesome. That's all we needed but we stll got the development to boot.
! @Nex:
! > It's still unclear to me where any of this development is at.
! Like I said, Avengers mostly showed us how much Thor changed.
! @Nex:
! > And you mean the conflict with his brother that stayed the same from beginning to end, and amounted to "I have to stop him."
! Thor was trying to convince Loki till the every end to stop his madness and to come back to Asgard as his brother. It's only at the end that he had to give up and treat him as a criminal. I agree Thor had little to no development but who cares? We liked the character and the history with his brother was interesting, that's all we needed.
! @Nex:
! > Subtext can only be a successful tool when it's reinforcing an idea already presented through dialogue or actions. Otherwise you just asking your audience to read into things that aren't there.
! We got the idea that Banner was a good guy that wanted to help people. He dedicated his life to being a doctor. He flat out STATED he wanted to atone and help people. What more do you need?
! @Nex:
! > And I quote "I watch a darker movie because I want a more intelligent story and realistic characters."
! I meant that when darker movies try to have an intelligent story and realistic characters, it better have them. Sorry for the confusion but did you really think I meant that all dark movies go for realism? You think I never watched a Tim Burton movie before? Or Dredd?
! @Nex:
! > because of this "and personal sacrifice and overcoming oppression"
! I was spoiled about the themes the movie was handling before I saw it. It could have been about anything if it wanted. I just wanted a good story and interesting characters. Do you think I was expecting too much?
! @Nex:
! > But still, having seen Begins and TDK, I don't know why you thought it would be more than those.
! Because Begins and TDK did have a…well not good but decent story and characters.
! @Nex:
! > Judging something for what it is, is more of judging a film on its own goals, and how well it succeeded. The biggest issue with judging by genre, is that you can have to movies (like The Avengers and Rises) that fall into the same genre but are incredibly different.
! This seems like something I've already addressed. Next.
! @Nex:
! > You should give it a chance, all I'm saying.
! I can't do anything else but wait till I hear more about it. Maybe I'll hear more positive things about it later? We'll see.Lol at Thousand Lion chans"DARK= REALISM".
I never said that being dark automatically means realism. Dredd and The Raid were two of my favorite movies of the year and those flicks were action movies that were dark as shit. What I said was that there are a lot of movies that are dark and try to fool people that they're deep because they're so dark and dramatic.
-
You know what, congratulations, you win. Yadda, yadda. I really don't feel like wasting more of my time with this, because it's going absolutely nowhere.
So yay for you or whatever.
-
I hate to say this again, but it's not like Superman had a realization moment to be a good guy and a boy scout. Ma and Pa raised him that way his entire life. Clark grew up with the ideals that he's known for.
Unlike Spider-Man, who needed Uncle Ben to die to realize he has responsibilities with the powers he has. -
@Sniper:
I hate to say this again, but it's not like Superman had a realization moment to be a good guy and a boy scout. Ma and Pa raised him that way his entire life. Clark grew up with the ideals that he's known for.
Unlike Spider-Man, who needed Uncle Ben to die to realize he has responsibilities with the powers he has.Yet when I asked TLC why Supes was like that he couldn't tell me.
It wasn't that I was ignoring you. I know well how and why Superman is Superman, but for some reason TLC couldn't tell me
To me it looks like the movie is trying to keep it going the same way, but with a bit more realistic conflict of a father worrying what the world might do to his son. -
@Nex:
Yet when I asked TLC why Supes was like that he couldn't tell me.
It wasn't that I was ignoring you. I know well how and why Superman is Superman, but for some reason TLC couldn't tell me
To me it looks like the movie is trying to keep it going the same way, but with a bit more realistic conflict of a father worrying what the world might do to his son.Okay, gotcha. Sorry!
And I hope that's the direction they take it. I like boy scout Superman a lot. -
Very positive reactions to the film from press screenings.
Here's the reactions.
**_Imagine a Nolan story with Snyder effects/action.
- It's the best movie of the year.
- There's TONS of_ action _with Superman kicking all kinds of ass in his suit.
- The cape is CG'd most of the time so it can look awesome.
- They have intentionally left out most of the the Super action in trailers to save it.
- It's not nearly as dour and serious as the trailers suggest.
- The movie is complete, minus the 3D post-conversion, which is currently taking place_**
Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=74832#U7kM4VT3WjIxYqpo.99
"It's not nearly as dour and serious as the trailers suggest."
Yes.
"It's the best movie of the year."
Yes.
"They have intentionally left out most of the the Super action in trailers to save it."
Yes!
_"_There's TONS of action with Superman kicking all kinds of ass in his suit."
Fuck yes!Repeated for the detractors out here.
Thank God. Warner Bros may actually hit their first non-Batman superhero flick homerun in a long time with this flick.
I'm more excited for this film than I ever have. It's my most anticipated film this year.
-
This (well, also Avengers) is the only film I've seriously wanted to see in theaters!
I can't freaking wait!! -
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
Oh and by the way, spoiler's ahead…. Here's how Supes origin been tinkered.
Kryptonian children Engineered?
-
Well birthing matrices are canon with Kryptonians, who's to say they don't play with the setting once in a while?
-
So the outfit superman wears is what all Kryptonians wear, except they dont' have the cape, and have a crap load of armor overtop.
So superman is essentially wearing the skin tight suits you see in all the gundam type shows, or something Iron man might have on under his suit?
-
I love that link Bill posted because there's a guy ranting and raving in the comments about how removing Kryptonite is destroying one of the original aspects of the Superman Mythos and it's hysterical because Kryptonite is VERY inconsistent in the comics as to exactly what it does to him and how common it is, and it's also not originally from the comics. For the first 4-5 years there was no Kryptonite until the Radio show invented it as a contrived plot point to give him a weakness so the fights didn't seem so one-sided in the radio shows.
They also eliminate it from the comics and ignore it a lot. During Death of Superman, Doomsday "kills" him through a simple savage beating, ending with a double-KO with them each making their final hit and killing the other.I do like these changes tho to be honest. His origin here is feeling very reminiscent of the John Byrne Man of Steel run which I like. This genetic engineering bit sounds a LOT like the Kryptonian Birthing Matrix, only in the comics, Kal-El was birthed that way too, but I like it, it's a good change as far as I'm concerned.
I also really like when they modify the suit to be of Kryptonian origin as well. It makes more sense that it'd be alien somehow because otherwise, with the caliber of enemy Superman fights, why do his clothes not tear and explode off of him every time he takes a punch?
This is slowly shaping up to be something awesome.