I know Devito's version of the Penguin was as far from the comics as you can get and super gross too, but still, i can't help but enjoying his performance immensely. DeVito really gives it his all and is a lot of fun to watch, even when he's biting people's noses off or making skeevy sexual advances towards Catwoman.
DC Movies Thread - Shazam saves the day
-
-
so do you guys think we'll ever get to see a good movie with Darkseid in it?
Do you want a good movie with Darkseid in it or a movie with a good Darkseid performance in it. Cause we all know how much comic book movies have struggled to bring characters from the pages to the films especially Villains.
Sacrilege! Surely you mean Burgess Meredith?
Devito's gross version wasn't exactly the definitive Penguin and no other version has really tried to imitate it since.
I mean I'm fine with that given how corny 60's Batman was and yes I say that knowing they brought back Frank Gorshin as the Riddler for Batman TAS though I honestly don't remember Gorshin's performance from the 60's show…..nor anyone else's.
-
Do you want a good movie with Darkseid in it or a movie with a good Darkseid performance in it. Cause we all know how much comic book movies have struggled to bring characters from the pages to the films especially Villains.
Is it to much to ask for both?
-
-
Desperate fan mentality: No
Cynic fan mentality: YesLol fair enough
16 characters of unfortunate truth
-
Marvel movies cannot be considered "cinema" because their very fundamental reason for existing is providing entertainment and making money. These movies aren't some personal or passion-project of their creators. These movies are factory-made manufactured projects that only exist to promote the future movies.
See, I still consider them cinema, because there was a lot of work and effort put into them by the moviemakers and the actors, both to make them fun and emotional. There isn't really "pure" or "true" cinema, it's just more arthouse vs. blockbuster.
My favorite Superhero stuff is when the hero is actually grounded, relatable and someone who I can empathize with.
So, Captain America?
Sacrilege! Surely you mean Burgess Meredith?
Devito's gross version wasn't exactly the definitive Penguin and no other version has really tried to imitate it since.
I am ashamed! I completely forgot about him.
-
Marvel movies cannot be considered "cinema" because their very fundamental reason for existing is providing entertainment and making money. These movies aren't some personal or passion-project of their creators. These movies are factory-made manufactured projects that only exist to promote the future movies.
I don't see why existing to entertain people and being someones passion project are mutually exclusive though? Why can't it be someone's passion to really entertain his audience? Sure, a franchise like the MCU also has a fair share of people behind it who simply view it as a money-making machine, but are you really suggesting that none of the people who work on these movies are passionate about it because they grew up with Marvel comics and love these characters? Like, Joss Whedon wasn't passionate about doing the Avengers? James Gunn doesn't seem passionate about the Guardians of the Galaxy? Aren't a lot of the actors very passionate about their work in the MCU? I think Martin Scorsese is allowed to have his opinion (which has honestly been blown out of proportion by the media anyway), but it does seem a little disrespectful to me to simply badmouth something so many people worked very hard to create just because he doesn't care for it personally.
Pure "cinema" or "true" cinema isn't about just entertainment. They can feature mature content or themes or be the opposite and have more colors or light-heartedness and yet still conveying something deeper for the audience or using creative techniques to craft something truly special. Sam Raimi's Spider-man trilogy or Nolan's Batman trilogy or Logan stand out more than any Marvel movie. Simply because, while the characters are from comic-book, the style and look and feel of the movies reflect the directors. They are driven by the directors, not the demand or corporate heads.
I honestly don't see how Raimi's Spidey-trilogy is more mature then most of the MCU, but alright. I deeply disagree with the notion that a movie has to be particularly mature and 'deep' to be considered to have any worth as a piece of art.
-
Awww, Joaquin Phoenix made such a nice SAG award speech, including remembering Heath Ledger:
https://movieweb.com/joker-sag-awards-2020-joaquin-phoenix-heath-ledger/?fbclid=IwAR2SF53mLkwaWUH0MRLA1V8IsPJBW306dK9GCCoLJ7OeFKyl7bFrBQLoLFc -
mutually exclusive though
And Baby Driver is an excellent example of that.
Marvel movies are not.
Or how One Piece is a series that was created to entertain but still carries basically what makes Oda….Oda. It's a fun series but at the same time it reflects Oda in every possible way. That is what I would call a passion-project.
Marvel movies are like FT. Popular, and fun but the actual creators aren't represented. They carry all the popular elements and have popular stuff but that's just it; they are made with a strict guidelines of earlier successes. Nobody gives a damn about like half of Marvel movies for their own merits since they aren't, by any means, good but people still watch them because they might have something related to the future movies.
Marvel movies are a business. Pure and simple. The sooner people start to accept their own taste, the sooner we can have an honest and open discussion.
simply badmouth something so many people worked very hard to create
Which isn't really an excuse though.
And where is this excuse for Transformers or any other generic action-flick or in fact, where is this more basically anything that people worked hard to create?
Raimi's Spidey-trilogy is more mature then most of the MCU, but alright. I deeply disagree with the notion that a movie has to be particularly mature and 'deep' to be considered to have any worth as a piece of art.
I'm sorry but I think you need to read what I said again.
I was talking about how a work, despite having 100's of different people working on it, can still represent one man's vision or team's vision. Why do people refer to Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy as….well Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy? Because his vision and directional style is the foundation of the project. Same with Sam Raimi's Spider-man movies.
They aren't "deep" or at least that wasn't what I was saying but they are, in fact, a representation of their directors. Marvel doesn't have anyone like that simply because "director" is basically just a place-holder where they can shove anyone's name but the end project is still very much a corporate controlled work.
Nolan's and Raimi's movies ended. Flawed but they still ended and told their stories. Marvel has endless movies that span movies that are completely not-needed but will be made simply because the audience will see it and they know it. Why does a character like Black Widow, whose character starts and ends in a sentence, have a full-feature movie dedicated to it? Because regardless of how mediocre the movie is, it will make money.
And that is perfectly fine for anyone who enjoys these redundant flicks and still go to the theaters to pretend that they aren't watching the same thing as the previous ones and still be surprised and pretend to have some opinion on it.
But what REALLY gets to me is the bs excuses that people use in order to justify thinking that Marvel movies aren't some demand and supply factory made movies. They are.
And the irony of this is that it REALLY shouldn't matter to you if you truly liked them. My opinion and Martin's opinion is completely irrelevant and changes nothing if people were self-aware and understood their tastes. But the backlash still happened and proved just how insecure popcorn flick-watching people really are.
it does seem a little disrespectful to me
This is just pure lol to me.
I love how Martin didn't directly insult the movie makers in any way unless simply suggesting that Marvel movies won't be analysed or discussed seriously in terms of anything because they don't do anything well to be worthy of discussion, is considered "insulting" while people directly insulting a industry-vet and telling him how he doesn't have any "clue" is just super lol worthy moment.
I guess, people insulting Martin's non-insulting statement somehow doesn't come across as…..well insulting.
Especially given how Martin can talk about Marvel movies and the directors of Marvel movies can talk about Martin's work because...well they still share the same medium and their opinions would hold water since they understand how the process works compare to the mindless idiots, who aren't involved in film-making or anything thus having no real basis for their opinions aside from their own "fun" factor, who are trying to challenge an expert.
What makes this situation EVEN MORE funny is how actors, like Robert, decided to comment on how "wrong" Martin is....even though they have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about since none of the actors have ever directed a movie themselves or even wrote anything worth a damn.....But again, I guess the highest paid dude says Martin is wrong so therefore he is wrong.....lol.
I'm honestly surprised that Martin didn't call out these people and bring his experience. Would've loved to seen how people, then, desperately try to justify their stance based on zero experience, knowledge and completely biased pov.
-
And Baby Driver is an excellent example of that.
Marvel movies are not.
Or how One Piece is a series that was created to entertain but still carries basically what makes Oda….Oda. It's a fun series but at the same time it reflects Oda in every possible way. That is what I would call a passion-project.
Marvel movies are like FT. Popular, and fun but the actual creators aren't represented. They carry all the popular elements and have popular stuff but that's just it; they are made with a strict guidelines of earlier successes. Nobody gives a damn about like half of Marvel movies for their own merits since they aren't, by any means, good but people still watch them because they might have something related to the future movies.
Marvel movies are a business. Pure and simple. The sooner people start to accept their own taste, the sooner we can have an honest and open discussion.
I get what you're saying about something like One Piece or Baby Driver, i.e. unique works of fiction that are based solely on the creative vision of their creator can be considered more of a passion project then something like the MCU, but I wasn't arguing against that any way. I was simply saying that it's wrong to deny the Marvel movies any sort of creative vision or passion behind the scenes. There are people working on these films who are passionate about the characters and the stories. Imho it's also wrong to generally state the creators aren't represented when you have the Guardians films or Thor 3 which quite clearly carry their director's personal handwriting. Of course, you might argue that some of the Marvel films lack any personal creative passion and I'd definitely agree, but that's besides the point, because Scorsese didn't care to differentiate either between the different movies. And guess what, who were the creative people most hurt by his comments? Marvel directors like James Gunn or Joss Whedon who actually are passionate about their MCU movies and suddenly had one of their idols badmouthing their work for no real reason other that they weren't his cup of tea.
And seriously, how presumptuous and condescending is it for you to assume people's tastes and reasons for liking the MCU movies and demanding that we all should just accept we like something that's actually not "by any means, good" so we can have an "honest and open discussion" about this topic. I guess it's hard to imagine, but there are actually people who do genuinely enjoy these films, think they are well-made and entertaining, feel an emotional connection to the characters etc.
Which isn't really an excuse though.
And where is this excuse for Transformers or any other generic action-flick or in fact, where is this more basically anything that people worked hard to create?
Excuse for what?
Nobody is arguing in favor of these films because nobody really cares about them. Maybe because there actually was a lack of passion behind these projects? I mean, do you really think Michael Bay is as passionate about Transformers than Joss Whedon was about directing the first Avengers movie?
I'm sorry but I think you need to read what I said again.
I was talking about how a work, despite having 100's of different people working on it, can still represent one man's vision or team's vision. Why do people refer to Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy as….well Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy? Because his vision and directional style is the foundation of the project. Same with Sam Raimi's Spider-man movies.
They aren't "deep" or at least that wasn't what I was saying but they are, in fact, a representation of their directors. Marvel doesn't have anyone like that simply because "director" is basically just a place-holder where they can shove anyone's name but the end project is still very much a corporate controlled work.
Nolan's and Raimi's movies ended. Flawed but they still ended and told their stories. Marvel has endless movies that span movies that are completely not-needed but will be made simply because the audience will see it and they know it. Why does a character like Black Widow, whose character starts and ends in a sentence, have a full-feature movie dedicated to it? Because regardless of how mediocre the movie is, it will make money.
As I mentioned above, I disagree that the same can't be said for any of the Marvel movies. And regarding Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy, I don't even how this one is such a shining example of a superhero trilogy that, im comparison to the MCU films, definitely mirrors its creators handwriting. I don't see that much Raimi in his Spider-Man films. And so what if they ended? It's not like the individual trilogies or character arcs in the MCU never end, either. There certainly won't be anymore Captain America or Iron Man films now, and the Guardians of the Galaxy's story is also set to end after it's trilogy is completed. And what do you care if a character like Black Widow gets her own film as a swan song for the character lol? That seems like such a random thing to complain about.
And that is perfectly fine for anyone who enjoys these redundant flicks and still go to the theaters to pretend that they aren't watching the same thing as the previous ones and still be surprised and pretend to have some opinion on it.
But what REALLY gets to me is the bs excuses that people use in order to justify thinking that Marvel movies aren't some demand and supply factory made movies. They are.
And the irony of this is that it REALLY shouldn't matter to you if you truly liked them. My opinion and Martin's opinion is completely irrelevant and changes nothing if people were self-aware and understood their tastes. But the backlash still happened and proved just how insecure popcorn flick-watching people really are.
And it REALLY shouldn't matter to you either why people enjoy these films. You're denying Marvel fans any opinions about the MCU that differ from your own opinion that these films are redundant demand and supply factory made movies and simultaneously claiming that they shouldn't care about your opinion because that just shows their insecurities. Also, I actually agree with you that the people who lashed out at Scorsese just because he stated his opinions were or are insecure about their fandom and that's why they got so defensive; I just don't understand the need to tell other people what to like, or to patronizingly explain to them what their 'actual' reasons for liking Marvel are.
This is just pure lol to me.
I love how Martin didn't directly insult the movie makers in any way unless simply suggesting that Marvel movies won't be analysed or discussed seriously in terms of anything because they don't do anything well to be worthy of discussion, is considered "insulting" while people directly insulting a industry-vet and telling him how he doesn't have any "clue" is just super lol worthy moment.
I guess, people insulting Martin's non-insulting statement somehow doesn't come across as…..well insulting.
Especially given how Martin can talk about Marvel movies and the directors of Marvel movies can talk about Martin's work because…well they still share the same medium and their opinions would hold water since they understand how the process works compare to the mindless idiots, who aren't involved in film-making or anything thus having no real basis for their opinions aside from their own "fun" factor, who are trying to challenge an expert.
Uhh, first off all, when did I say that the people insulting him aren't rude and disrespectful, either?? Of course they are lol. The guy just stated his opinions and I can see where he is coming from in general (albeit I don't think his personal views are objectively true just because he is a great director in his own right) and people act like he's a senile old man. It's an incredible rude and childish way to deal with the opinions of a living legend. That's the internet for you, I guess.
That said: people being incredibly rude to Scorsese afterwards doesn't negate in any way that he was being a little disrespectful (and that's all I said, 'a little disrespectful', so calm down) towards the creative forces behind the MCU.
What makes this situation EVEN MORE funny is how actors, like Robert, decided to comment on how "wrong" Martin is….even though they have absolutely no idea of what they are talking about since none of the actors have ever directed a movie themselves or even wrote anything worth a damn.....But again, I guess the highest paid dude says Martin is wrong so therefore he is wrong.....lol.
What are you referring to? I only saw one interview with Robert where he talked about Scorsese's comments, and he was completely respectful about it. I'm sure some other actors were probably a bit more outspoken but again, since Scorsese didn't just talk about the directing of the Marvel movies but instead condemned them completely, I think everybody who worked on these films is allowed to have an opinion about the situation.
-
I get what you're saying about something like One Piece or Baby Driver, i.e. unique works of fiction that are based solely on the creative vision of their creator can be considered more of a passion project then something like the MCU, but I wasn't arguing against that any way. I was simply saying that it's wrong to deny the Marvel movies any sort of creative vision or passion behind the scenes. There are people working on these films who are passionate about the characters and the stories. Imho it's also wrong to generally state the creators aren't represented when you have the Guardians films or Thor 3 which quite clearly carry their director's personal handwriting. Of course, you might argue that some of the Marvel films lack any personal creative passion and I'd definitely agree, but that's besides the point, because Scorsese didn't care to differentiate either between the different movies. And guess what, who were the creative people most hurt by his comments? Marvel directors like James Gunn or Joss Whedon who actually are passionate about their MCU movies and suddenly had one of their idols badmouthing their work for no real reason other that they weren't his cup of tea.
Ragnarok is a great example. I agree and disagree that he's badmouthing their work. He sees how they're cornering the market and that can make most movie goers be less open to other kind of films. Scorsese is simply bitter, but right on many points. He's generalizing them and that shows the bitterness, but some of the generalizations stem from the truth of many of the movies being generic. The response to what he says has proven him right. Many are blindly refuting things he has said with "oh you're old and don't know anything". At the same time, saying a movie isn't a movie doesn't make sense. I don't care how many people revere your work. Saying any of the comic book movies "aren't cinema" is wrong.
-
I don’t agree that marvel movies aren’t cinema, I see this as almost the same as when my dad hears pop music or rap on the radio and says it’s not music
Both are older generations not liking what’s new, a simpler beat with an immense amount of auto tune might require less talent and in the eyes of critics be less worthy of praise but it’s still music nonetheless. And Marvel movies might rely more on CGI spectacles and comedy over character development or plot but it’s still cinema, maybe just not your type
-
Ragnarok is a great example. I agree and disagree that he's badmouthing their work. He sees how they're cornering the market and that can make most movie goers be less open to other kind of films. Scorsese is simply bitter, but right on many points. He's generalizing them and that shows the bitterness, but some of the generalizations stem from the truth of many of the movies being generic. The response to what he says has proven him right. Many are blindly refuting things he has said with "oh you're old and don't know anything". At the same time, saying a movie isn't a movie doesn't make sense. I don't care how many people revere your work. Saying any of the comic book movies "aren't cinema" is wrong.
Yep, that's exactly my point too. Scorsese's points are valid to an extent, as his fear that big mass-produced franchises might one day leave no more room for smaller films that don't make a ton of money but come more from a place of personal artistic vision is quite understandable. But part of his criticism also stem from his own subjective taste, which leads him to overgeneralize and disregard any possible artistic vision/passion existing in the MCU, which is unfair. I also dislike the underlying claim that only those small, personal projects can be truly considered cinema. Imho, the big, epic blockbusters are just as much a part of cinema. In the end, such an artificial division into true cinema and other kinds of films seems completely pointless to me, as it will always come down to personal preferences, anyway.
-
I had no idea til recently that Birds of Prey was going to be rated 'R'. I guess the studio is learning that even a restrictive rating doesn't prevent there from being a big financial gain. Take the hint, Sony, for Venom 2.
But now that I've been satisfied by both their efforts in Aquaman and Shazam, I'm going to reward them with my patronage and see BoP in theaters as well. Aquaman, which I got to see in IMAX with some free passes, did put me in the mood to actually pay to see Shazam, and I wasn't disappointed, so they've earned the benefit of the doubt and by taking a risk with an R rating, I'm going to help do my part to make it worth their while to continue that trend as often as possible.
-
I didn't think i'd like the Harley show, but it's decent. Every trailer for BoP is telling me to try it at home when it's out digitally
-
Birds of Prey is the superhero movie I'm most looking forward to this year. I think it looks great. I've loved every trailer.
WW84 looks good and BW looks bland. The little I know of Eternals just doesn't seem interesting to me. Though, obviously I can't say much for the MCU version yet. The costume reveals weren't encouraging.
-
I had no idea til recently that Birds of Prey was going to be rated 'R'. I guess the studio is learning that even a restrictive rating doesn't prevent there from being a big financial gain. Take the hint, Sony, for Venom 2.
More like take the hint Disney. Wait for PG 13 deadpool 3, PG 13 doctor strange 2 horror movie and PG 13 Blade.
-
Not for nothing but you can do a PG13 horror movie plus Dr. Strange isn't really known for being a violent property like Deadpool anyway.
-
And Disney doesn't need to take the hint. if they want to make an R-rated comic book property they can release it through Fox Studios now.
-
So, the first reactions to Birds of Prey are rolling out on Twitter and apparently, it's really good!
-
I honestly don't think I will enjoy it - good review or no. It would have to be a redemption story, or a bad person turning semi-good. A bunch of maniacs doin maniac-things rarely works for me. If there are moment when we can see beneath the Harley-persona, but that is something.
-
do you really think Michael Bay is as passionate about Transformers than Joss Whedon was about directing the first Avengers movie?
And where is that dude? Oh right, he doesn't work with Marvel anymore.
And lol Michael Bay is basically like every Marvel director. Just that he doesn't have the pretentious following that argues his movies to be anything more than generic explosion-fest.
But feel free to expand upon that and actually discuss it. I don't particularly see the point of bringing up that topic but then using some lazy tactics that basically boil down to "MAH OPINION".
Yes, I know it's your opinion and yes I know its my opinion. I can explain mine but for whatever reason, you seem to be find it really hard to go beyond it and actually explain WHY you feel or think about those movies you do.
we like something that's actually not "by any means, good"
No need to be offended by that.
You liking anything is basically irrelevant to the quality of it. I myself like plenty of dumb shit and stuff that I know isn't particularly good. The thing is, I wouldn't start arguing or being offended if someone called the first season of Food wars to be mindless entertainment because that's ultimately what I enjoy it for.
The problem with your outlook is that you seem to be watching pop-corn flicks all the while also arguing that these movies weren't created to just entertain.
these films are redundant demand and supply factory made
That's a fact.
Liking them or not is your opinion. No corporate heads sitting at the top of Marvel is losing sleep over not finding directors who own their craft. Instead they find directors that can easily fit the quota and make them money. None of the Marvel directors have created any real movies that don't entirely rely on nostalgia and people having super low standards to be point of actually caring about by-the-books mediocrity that these movies tend to be.
Also just wondering; is there any real meat behind this discussion or is it just going to boil down to "MAH OPINION" because in that case, I have already seen it. It's basically what Marvel fans everywhere rely upon since actually expanding and explaining is a bit too much to ask, i guess.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
which leads him to overgeneralize and disregard any possible artistic vision/passion existing in the MCU,
Feel free to explain what that is.
Using vague-terminology and subjective doesn't exactly make shallow opinions any less shallow.
epic blockbusters are just as much a part of cinema
Again, explain.
As much as you have wrote so far on the topic, I still can't comprehend what you think of these movies, why you think that, why you think there isn't a difference between movies that come from passion and to convey something more compare to movies that exist to just entertain.
For someone who is going on and on about subjective preference, you sure seem to have managed to convey very little of that in here unless the word "subjective" counts as…..saying anything other than generic go-to-statement.
come down to personal preferences
Your opinion of it is.
The work itself isn't subjective in that regard. Unless you seem to think that movies or really any creative work is created in a vacuum where the personality, views, interest etc.. of the creator aren't in any way reflected.
This is like claiming that Nausica and Fairytail stand on the same grounds with FT being viewed as literature because….it's all subjective, right? Just like novels have a distinction between literature-material and not-literature material, movies also have distinct between cinema and non-cinema. They exist. Pretending that there isn't a difference between a movie being a study of something and a movie that only exists to entertain doesn't mean that the boundaries aren't there.
-
And where is that dude? Oh right, he doesn't work with Marvel anymore.
What's your point, really? Joss Whedon was just an example I gave of a director who clearly cared a lot about the work he did on the Avengers. Even though it was a big, expensive studio production it was also at the same time a passion project for the director who grew up with these characters. For Whedon, it was probably a lifelong dream come true getting to direct his childhood heroes on the big screen, him not working with Marvel anymore doesn't negate that fact at all. That's what I've been arguing about : a film being a big studio production or part of a bigger franchise does not negate that the creative people behind the scenes might be passionate about their work.
And lol Michael Bay is basically like every Marvel director. Just that he doesn't have the pretentious following that argues his movies to be anything more than generic explosion-fest.
So you are just going to ignore the examples I gave you of directors who are much more passionate about their Marvel work or creative in general than Bay? Alright.
But feel free to expand upon that and actually discuss it. I don't particularly see the point of bringing up that topic but then using some lazy tactics that basically boil down to "MAH OPINION".
Yes, I know it's your opinion and yes I know its my opinion. I can explain mine but for whatever reason, you seem to be find it really hard to go beyond it and actually explain WHY you feel or think about those movies you do.
But YOU are the one who brought up the topic by comparing the MCU to generic action flicks like the Transformers, why are you now accusing ME of bringing up the topic (which is, as I understand it, comparing the MCU directors to Michael Bay) for no reason. And it doesn't boil down to "MAH OPINION", lol, the directors I named ARE more passionate about their MCU work. I mean, sorry, but saying someone like Taika Waititi is pretty much equal to Michael Bay as a director…how?
Nice try, but I gave clear examples of people who work passionately on the MCU movies, pour their personal creativity into their films etc. What else do you want me to do, give you example of moments in the MCU that resonated with me emotionally? Explain why I'm invested in certain characters? I mean, fine, I can do that, but what's the point lol? I kinda doubt that I'm going to convince you that there are any actually emotionally resonating scenes in the whole MCU anyway, so that just seems like a waste of my time.
Meanwhile, you've just reiterated your opinion, which you claim as fact, that the whole MCU is basically mindless, passionless crap and everybody who disagrees should just accept that and stop lying to themselves, without really responding to any the examples I've given you that show otherwise.
No need to be offended by that.
You liking anything is basically irrelevant to the quality of it. I myself like plenty of dumb shit and stuff that I know isn't particularly good. The thing is, I wouldn't start arguing or being offended if someone called the first season of Food wars to be mindless entertainment because that's ultimately what I enjoy it for.
The problem with your outlook is that you seem to be watching pop-corn flicks all the while also arguing that these movies weren't created to just entertain.
Again with the condescension lol. And you didn't even get my point either. I wasn't arguing that these movies weren't created to 'just' entertain - I was saying that doesn't automatically mean that they have no artistic value. Entertaining people successfully is an art form all in itself and it's pretentious to claim otherwise. Entertaining does not equal 'dumb shit' or 'not particularly good'. The reason that the MCU has been this successful so far is that they've constantly produced skillfully made, genuinely entertaining popcorn flicks - and yes, of course that's what they are, I've never argued otherwise, I'm just saying that doesn't make them bad or dumb - whereas other studios have completely failed at doing the same.
That's a fact.
Weird, I could have sworn it was just your opinion masquerading as a fact.
Liking them or not is your opinion. No corporate heads sitting at the top of Marvel is losing sleep over not finding directors who own their craft. Instead they find directors that can easily fit the quota and make them money.
I never claimed that that the corporate heads are passionate about anything else but the money they make of these films. I really don't care, to be honest. Is that what your opinion basically boils down to then? "Damn corporate heads, only caring about the money!"? I mean, duh. This can be literally said about any big studio movie and doesn't say anything about the creative value of the movies produced. I mean, what is your opinion about any other big studio films? The corporate heads of Pixar probably also only think about the money they can make of Toy Story 4. This doesn't mean the creative minds behind Toy Story 4 aren't passionate about working on the film or that it hold absolutely no artistic value. It just seems like such a childish and simplistic stance to me.
None of the Marvel directors have created any real movies that don't entirely rely on nostalgia and people having super low standards to be point of actually caring about by-the-books mediocrity that these movies tend to be.
What nostalgia? The only Marvel characters from the MCU I was familiar with before was Spider-Man and I would wager that the same goes for the majority of the audience. It's not just comic book nerds who enjoy these films, after all. Also, is it still hard to understand why I don't care much to give examples of specific scenes or moments that went beyond basic entertainment for me when you are convinced that everybody who loves these films has got to have "super low standards" in order to care about "by the books mediocrity"? It's obvious that your mind is set, so why should I bother? Seems completely futile and pointless.
Also just wondering; is there any real meat behind this discussion or is it just going to boil down to "MAH OPINION" because in that case, I have already seen it. It's basically what Marvel fans everywhere rely upon since actually expanding and explaining is a bit too much to ask, i guess.
Well, maybe, if you'd actually respond to the points I made or the examples I've given…Please stop trying to spin this discussion as if your points have been objectively true and empirically proven when all you've done is state your opinion as fact.
Feel free to explain what that is.
Again, what exactly do you want from me? To explain to you what artistic vision/passion is or how it's implemented in the MCU? I HAVE given you examples of MCU movies that do so. Do you want me to search for interviews with people who worked on these movie talking passionately about their work, the characters etc.? It's really not that hard to find.
Again, explain.
As much as you have wrote so far on the topic, I still can't comprehend what you think of these movies, why you think that, why you think there isn't a difference between movies that come from passion and to convey something more compare to movies that exist to just entertain.
For someone who is going on and on about subjective preference, you sure seem to have managed to convey very little of that in here unless the word "subjective" counts as…..saying anything other than generic go-to-statement.
Explain why I find epic blockbusters to be a part of cinema? When have they ever not been? Epic blockbusters have always been a part of cinema history. Cinema does not just consist of small indie films, arthouse movies etc.
Again my point is that a film that exists just to entertain can ALSO come from passion and that at least some of the MCU movies are an example of that. I've given examples of that, which you have been ignoring . And when have I've been going on and on about subjective preference? That wasn't my point at all. What I HAVE been arguing is that you disregard any opinions that disagree with your own as people lying to themselves. That has little to do with subjective preference though and much more with you being pretty condescending and rude to people that enjoy something you don't.
Your opinion of it is.
The work itself isn't subjective in that regard. Unless you seem to think that movies or really any creative work is created in a vacuum where the personality, views, interest etc.. of the creator aren't in any way reflected.
I don't believe creative work is created in a vacuum, but I also don't believe that it's possible to COMPLETELY separate objective quality from personal preference. It will also always play a part in any form of critique. Martin Scorsese would probably think differently about MCU movies if he liked superhero films in general, for example. Doesn't negate objective criticisms, of course, but personal opinion does play a part in Scorsese's assessment as much as it does in anybody else's.
This is like claiming that Nausica and Fairytail stand on the same grounds with FT being viewed as literature because….it's all subjective, right? Just like novels have a distinction between literature-material and not-literature material, movies also have distinct between cinema and non-cinema. They exist. Pretending that there isn't a difference between a movie being a study of something and a movie that only exists to entertain doesn't mean that the boundaries aren't there.
I don't know Nausica, but…yeah? Kinda? Bad literature is still literature. A crappy piece of art is still a piece of art. And once again, I never said that there is no difference between a movie meant as a study of something and a movie meant as pure entertainment, I said movies that exist to entertain still have artistic value and shouldn't be disregarded just because they weren't meant to be deep and thought-provoking per se .
-
MAH OPINION
Yea, I got that part when it was stated the last billion times.
But thanks. I managed to learn absolutely nothing.
Though I thought this was a pretty interesting part:
YOU are the one who brought up the topic by comparing the MCU to generic action flicks like the Transformers
I'm sorry, but should I post a transcript of the entire conversation here in order to point out exactly who brought up and what point was referring to what point? I'm not the one to bring up the whole "simply badmouth something so many people worked very hard to create" Which is when I brought up the example of Transformers which, by no means is a lazy movie if you REALLY want to get technical about how many people worked hard on it with actual results, is still a movie franchise that gets shat on by everyone, including your own remark against it despite it being literally like Marvel movies minus the pushy-progressive tone. Which again is a point that literally went nowhere other than the classic "MAH OPINION".
You really ought to step back and read exactly what is being said because this really isn't the first time you mis-read what I said and went on about something that wasn't even related to the topic at hand.
Anyways, Good luck. Don't have much of a reason to go back and forth.
-
I can't believe I've wasted my time and effort writing up a long-ass response only to get it reduced to "MAH OPINION". Either you really don't understand any of the points I made or examples I've given, or you are just willingly ignoring them to troll me. I mean, I could have saved me some time and just reduced everything you said to "MAH OPINION IS FACT", but I tried to not be too much of a dick about it.
I'm sorry, but should I post a transcript of the entire conversation here in order to point out exactly who brought up and what point was referring to what point? I'm not the one to bring up the whole "simply badmouth something so many people worked very hard to create" Which is when I brought up the example of Transformers which, by no means is a lazy movie if you REALLY want to get technical about how many people worked hard on it with actual results, is still a movie franchise that gets shat on by everyone, including your own remark against it despite it being literally like Marvel movies minus the pushy-progressive tone. Which again is a point that literally went nowhere other than the classic "MAH OPINION".
The whole paragraph where that quote from me is from was about people producing something with passion. Just because I didn't use the word 'passion' for the hundredth time in that single sentence doesn't mean that it was completely disconnected from that general context of "a lot of the creative minds behind the MCU films have a lot of passion for their work". Which is why, when you jumped on that single statement without any context to compare the MCU to generic action flicks like the Transformer films (which, just to be clear, are also a part of cinema to me), I focused on the passion the creative minds behind both films have for their films, in this case the directors, Whedon and Bay. And lol, I just re-read my response, I literally brought this up to answer your question why nobody is rushing to defend the Transformer films, which I theorized boils down to this lack of creative passion. How is this not related to the topic at hand when that's what I've been arguing about from the start ?
Seriously, don't tell me I'm mis-reading things or not getting your point when you're literally ignoring all my arguments or taking them completely out of context. But yeah, please, let's end this discussion. It really is a pointless waste of time and energy, which is sadly what most internet discussions turn out to be.
-
I honestly don't think I will enjoy it - good review or no. It would have to be a redemption story, or a bad person turning semi-good. A bunch of maniacs doin maniac-things rarely works for me. If there are moment when we can see beneath the Harley-persona, but that is something.
Did you consider Suicide Squad to be a redemption story (even if done extremely poorly)? It does look to me like they're trying to go in that direction (at least more strongly than SS), with Harley attempting it by doing the only thing she knows how, which is maniac stuff. But she's working with people who aren't villains rather than a bunch of other villains being coerced to do good like in SS so that's something. I thought that was the impression everyone would have got from the trailers? But I'm optimistic. Lessons will be learned by all, I'm sure, over the course of the movie. Good guys will learn they need to break the rules to bring justice. Bad guys will learn they're not incapable of redemption, maybe they'll even like the taste of heroism, as full of collateral damage as it may be. Mob guys will learn that it's not just the Batman they need to be afraid of.
-
Birds of Prey was a lot of fun. Up there with Shazam and Aquaman as one of the best DCEU movies.
-
I will understand the logic behind "it has great reviews, so it's worth a try". Most of society really wait for sales and reviews, when they supposedly have their own opinion. I can look at 60% of a trailer and say whether it's worth a try at the theatre or wait for it at home. It's the simplest thing in the world. You have to read the opinions of others that might not have your taste for confidence?
Based on the 2 trailers i've watched, i've felt it's worth a try, but the second 1 makes me question if that try should be in the theatre or not. The TV show pushed me into going to the theatre and I applaud that strategy by them.
-
I will understand the logic behind "it has great reviews, so it's worth a try". Most of society really wait for sales and reviews, when they supposedly have their own opinion. I can look at 60% of a trailer and say whether it's worth a try at the theatre or wait for it at home. It's the simplest thing in the world. You have to read the opinions of others that might not have your taste for confidence?
Previews aren't often enough for movies. For video games I will watch videos from a few highly detailed (but spoiler free) people whose opinions have been pretty on point, but use previews to inform the bulk of my purchases. For movies, word of mouth from friends is about all I can go on. Trailers are nice, but often subjective. If I knew some reviewers with taste similar to my own, I don't see why it would be an issue to use their reviews to see whether I want to watch a movie or not. It's hard to have an opinion on something one hasn't seen, even with a preview.
-
Previews aren't often enough for movies. For video games I will watch videos from a few highly detailed (but spoiler free) people whose opinions have been pretty on point, but use previews to inform the bulk of my purchases. For movies, word of mouth from friends is about all I can go on. Trailers are nice, but often subjective. If I knew some reviewers with taste similar to my own, I don't see why it would be an issue to use their reviews to see whether I want to watch a movie or not. It's hard to have an opinion on something one hasn't seen, even with a preview.
Based on what you wrote, I can understand it better now. It's a simple difference in the perception of dependency
-
I will understand the logic behind "it has great reviews, so it's worth a try". Most of society really wait for sales and reviews, when they supposedly have their own opinion. I can look at 60% of a trailer and say whether it's worth a try at the theatre or wait for it at home. It's the simplest thing in the world. You have to read the opinions of others that might not have your taste for confidence?
Based on the 2 trailers i've watched, i've felt it's worth a try, but the second 1 makes me question if that try should be in the theatre or not. The TV show pushed me into going to the theatre and I applaud that strategy by them.
A trailer is short and can be edited to say whatever the marketing wants it to say and have an agenda. A reviewer in top of his opinion usually describes the movie beats and what the movie interest are. Like is it an introspective on the character, is it all about the action, does those side characters get much to do, is there a lot of humor. And a a reviewer has way less incentive to twist what happens to fit his vision since her reward is from people liking his review not the movie. Also after a couple of reviews you can get a decent idea where your taste tend to cross and not have to spend the money on a waste or let a good one pass you by.
-
You just need to find a person who's opinion you value, whether a friend or some reviewer
granted you won't always agree with said persons opinion 100% of the time, but at least find someone who has somewhat similar tastes and that should help you gauge whether you want to see said movie
and the best part is finding a little niche show or movie you never would have heard of without said person, for me I'd never heard of Young Justice or Firefly before someone showed said shows to me
-
I will understand the logic behind "it has great reviews, so it's worth a try". Most of society really wait for sales and reviews, when they supposedly have their own opinion. I can look at 60% of a trailer and say whether it's worth a try at the theatre or wait for it at home. It's the simplest thing in the world. You have to read the opinions of others that might not have your taste for confidence?
Based on the 2 trailers i've watched, i've felt it's worth a try, but the second 1 makes me question if that try should be in the theatre or not. The TV show pushed me into going to the theatre and I applaud that strategy by them.
The great reviews were the only reason I went and saw Into the Spider-Verse. I literally could not have been more convinced that Sony simply did not understand how to make a Marvel movie without Disney getting involved, but that one proved me wrong. I was already planning on seeing BoP for the trailers and R rating, but the reviews are just icing on the cake.
-
A trailer is short and can be edited to say whatever the marketing wants it to say and have an agenda. A reviewer in top of his opinion usually describes the movie beats and what the movie interest are. Like is it an introspective on the character, is it all about the action, does those side characters get much to do, is there a lot of humor. And a a reviewer has way less incentive to twist what happens to fit his vision since her reward is from people liking his review not the movie. Also after a couple of reviews you can get a decent idea where your taste tend to cross and not have to spend the money on a waste or let a good one pass you by.
I've seen so many things in story that I rarely ever finish the whole trailer due to being spoiled. That reviewer thing sounds like being spoon fed. There's no way you can speak for all reviewers. Especially when it's been revealed that some get paid to say certain things. On a wikia for manga, there are still things that have no sources. Some people depend on it when they don't want to go back to the manga without a source. Everything can't be policed. I can make an account right now and act like i'm spreading my genuine opinion for years. I don't have to be the "top reviewer" either. Ticket prices are high and I can't depend on a stranger to help me spend it when I have a mind of my own.
If anything, I believe everyone is a reviewer or critic. Don Cheadle said it best. It all depends on if you have confidence in your opinion or even know your own taste. It's almost like watching one of those Youtube or podcaster breakdowns. It;s definitely for people that can't hang. I still haven't come across someone that can show me what I already didn't pick up on. There's a necessity for it, just not for me. It can help people form their taste and come to an understanding of narrative techniques, characterization and dramatic structure, if they have trouble keeping up.
There's no one with an opinion that I value over my own and that's what it really comes down to with movies or TV. I know no one with the same exact taste. I can't wrap my head around the idea that people think someone else is comprehending story better than them. They can definitely perceive something differently, but better? Nah. Art is meant to be taken in how you see it.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
The great reviews were the only reason I went and saw Into the Spider-Verse. I literally could not have been more convinced that Sony simply did not understand how to make a Marvel movie without Disney getting involved, but that one proved me wrong. I was already planning on seeing BoP for the trailers and R rating, but the reviews are just icing on the cake.
That's cool. You needed it and that proves it's necessity. Just not something for me
-
It's called Birds of Prey but I bet it's mostly Harley movie than about the team.
-
Did you consider Suicide Squad to be a redemption story (even if done extremely poorly)? It does look to me like they're trying to go in that direction (at least more strongly than SS), with Harley attempting it by doing the only thing she knows how, which is maniac stuff. But she's working with people who aren't villains rather than a bunch of other villains being coerced to do good like in SS so that's something. I thought that was the impression everyone would have got from the trailers? But I'm optimistic. Lessons will be learned by all, I'm sure, over the course of the movie. Good guys will learn they need to break the rules to bring justice. Bad guys will learn they're not incapable of redemption, maybe they'll even like the taste of heroism, as full of collateral damage as it may be. Mob guys will learn that it's not just the Batman they need to be afraid of.
I guess the redemption arc of Suicide Squad was Will Smith's character, but boy I remember so little of the film. At the back of my mind is always the thought that these people did bad stuff. Yes, they be looking cool doing what they do now, but they still did bad stuff. If it's not a redemption story (for more than 1 character), then I cannot get engaged. But even a type of bad guy, will have lines they don't cross, and you can find something redemptive there. That's they doing something noble, even if for a moment. Wonder if I'm describing the Suicide Squad now. Really remember nothing.
But then I do like John Wick, and that guy's a brutal killer. But, dunno, killings contained within their world, I guess.
If the trailer for the next Gunn-directed Suicide Squad will be a bunch of "cool" stuff happening with a hip hop song playing in the background, it is unlikely to catch my attention.
-
That's cool. You needed it and that proves it's necessity. Just not something for me
Well, the fact that it was overwhelmingly positive, like above 90%, is what got me. Only the extremes really affect my decisions, otherwise yeah, not really that useful. Less than a 50% on something I've been really wanting to see, like what happened with The Happytime Murders, will definitely be able to change my mind, and when it's something I didn't think I would want to see, it's got to be near the top scores for it to change my mind.
I guess the redemption arc of Suicide Squad was Will Smith's character, but boy I remember so little of the film. At the back of my mind is always the thought that these people did bad stuff. Yes, they be looking cool doing what they do now, but they still did bad stuff. If it's not a redemption story (for more than 1 character), then I cannot get engaged. But even a type of bad guy, will have lines they don't cross, and you can find something redemptive there. That's they doing something noble, even if for a moment. Wonder if I'm describing the Suicide Squad now. Really remember nothing.
But then I do like John Wick, and that guy's a brutal killer. But, dunno, killings contained within their world, I guess.
If the trailer for the next Gunn-directed Suicide Squad will be a bunch of "cool" stuff happening with a hip hop song playing in the background, it is unlikely to catch my attention.
John Wick is more of a revenge story, though, not redemption. His version of redemption, his retirement, gets thrown out the window in the first film and continues to devolve. Even if he takes out the High Table, that's not redemption. "Are you pissed off, John? Are you? Hmm?" No redemption there, just rage-fueled vengeance. Calling in every favor you possibly can for one's own sake, hardly noble.
Deadshot's definitely on the road to redemption in SS, as was Diablo who sacrificed himself so there's nothing further there but it was nice. Harley's loyalty to the Joker was tested and she proved she could bond with others and risk her life for their sake (after a very rocky start) so that's a perfect little setup for BoP and with the worst influence in her life removed, while she's still broken, there's at least something there worth salvaging. Hell, even Captain Boomerang who ran off once his explosive device was deactivated, came back (for all the good it did), even if he was somewhat self-serving because of what he was trying to demand of them once they were locked back up. Also I don't see why the number of characters experiencing redemption is relevant.
-
-
That doesn't even qualify as a teaser.
-
That doesn't even qualify as a teaser.
Literally as devoid of substance as this was back in the day.
-
Did he turn the gun that killed his parents into the bat symbol??
-
He tweeted Camera Test. This isn't a teaser. Especially when the movie is only 2 weeks into filming and it doesn't come out until late 2nd quarter of next year. Nice interaction and embracing of the fans. Unlike the OP live action crew
-
Did he turn the gun that killed his parents into the bat symbol??
How would he have found it? It's not like the origin story of Spider-Man where he hunted down and caught the guy who killed Uncle Ben.
-
How would he have found it? It's not like the origin story of Spider-Man where he hunted down and caught the guy who killed Uncle Ben.
It's not like it's the bullet. You can find a gun even years later. Also he might have dumped it after the murder and it was sitting in evidence until Bruce took it back.
-
How is it gonna be part of the DCEU beside BvS ?
-
-
Just found out there's this weird conflict between those who love Ben's Batman and this Batman. Between this and the DC vs Marvel stuff, I think some people need to take a break from entertainment. They go at each other more than those that flame each other over politics.
With the Batman show (rumor), movie (next year) and game coming, I hope none of these come out bad. My whole life has been full with Batman. The market is too saturated. There's so many characters and they keep spamming Bruce. They need to go with lesser name and bring new energy
-
Lesser names gets you Jonah Hex and Constantine which in turn leads to them going back to Superman and Batman.
-
There are characters who are more recognizable than Hex and Constantine, but still lesser known than Bruce, Smallville and Barry. Lesser names can get you bad quality, but it doesn't guarantee a bad product. All characters aren't attached to a quality of writing. They have a story and how it's adapted is where things are judged upon. With that being a fact, lesser names than the usual 4 DC characters, isn't going to equate to a doomed film, game or show. It all depends on who is writing and directing this. They are responsible for making sure there is consistency in the story and performances respectively.
-
True as evidenced by Shazam.