Page 39 of 43 FirstFirst ... 29353637383940414243 LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 637
  1. #571
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luprki View Post
    Quality of a movie is subjective, but the fact still remains that DCEU is on a higher box office pace than the MCU
    Its quality necessarily subjective here? sometimes seeing is believing. The final Endgame battle scene was not as sharp in the eyes. The blur color dilution of the movie, the cinematography could have been a lot more polished. The movie is very animated than real life. See it here for yourself.



    Even Weblurker, the biggest mcu fan I know had to agree that the CGI scenes of Nighcralwer in X2 looked more life action and less animated than Endgame . At least Avatar had one hell of amazing CGI scenes that was beyond beautiful to behold and groundbreaking that I never knew could be created in a film. The Avatar story may have been crap but the movie made up for it technically. I don't think this is subjective, I think it is objective as we can compare both movies on paper to see which one did better in various different categories.
    Last edited by Beaddle; 08-24-2019 at 06:27 AM.

  2. #572
    King of Wakanda Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    7,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Its quality necessarily subjective here? sometimes seeing is believing. The final Endgame battle scene was not as sharp in the eyes. The blur color dilution of the movie, the cinematography could have been a lot more polished. The movie is very animated than real life. See it here for yourself.



    Even Weblurker, the biggest mcu fan I know had to agree that the CGI scenes of Nighcralwer in X2 looked more life action and less animated than Endgame . At least Avatar had one hell of amazing CGI scenes that was beyond beautiful to behold and groundbreaking that I never knew could be created in a film. The Avatar story may have been crap but the movie made up for it technically. I don't think this is subjective, I think it is objective as we can compare both movies on paper to see which one did better in various different categories.
    Lol I love the Nightcralwer White House scene but it's not even the same thing as the final battle from Endgame. Its alot of practical combined with CGI and only one character requires any CGI. Endgame has dozens of Heroes and villians fighting each other with a war going on around them. Theres nothing Objectively bad about it. You dont like it and that's fine, but the masses loved it.

  3. #573
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    DC became a victim of bad circumstances. The marvel slanted bias did not help them at all either.

    Yes we can and should all admit Shazam and Aquaman were basically MCU movies but if Nolan had stayed and head-runned the DCEU, Things would have turned out differently for DC. DC is not fully to blame for becoming MCU clones. They really need the Joker film to succeed to get back to full DC mode again.

    I don't like watching a DC movie where their animated movies like the recent Hush and Batman and Harely Quinn is far less kid friendly, its cheating the minds of their loyal audience who have grown up with DC movies since the 70s and 80s and even some millennials that still sees the Nolan trilogy as the most defining DC movies.
    Why shouldn't DC be fully to blame for becoming marvel clones. They made the decision to go that route, even though the early movies despite the criticism were still profitable. And they made the decision to switch gears mid-movie... they couldn't even wait until Justice League was finished to grab the Avengers director to redo Justice League more like a marvel movie. And that's on them.

    Like the MCU or not, they at least had a vision and stayed the course. Which is pretty darn impressive considering we're talking about 2 dozen movies. DCEU caved after just 2-3 movies, and the fault there isn't on circumstances but rather on them. I'm not even necessarily saying that going in a different direction was the wrong decision (though in the least they should have waited until Justice League was actually done), but the credit or the blame lies solely on them.

    And frankly Nolan was probably better off getting out when he did. He gets to keep the mystique of his work from the Batman trilogy unbleamished, without the tarnish of the DCEU dragging it down in the gutter. He quit while he was ahead.

  4. #574
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    Lol I love the Nightcralwer White House scene but it's not even the same thing as the final battle from Endgame.
    It will come as a shock to you , I like everything you said. I now wish you would see why I think MCU movies don't really make sense anymore in a larger context.

    The Nightcrawler White House scene was primary practical effects with a secondary addition of cgi. Its a progressive way to do superhero action scenes. its expensive and exhausting but worth it in the end, this is the reason most good xmen movies were primarily drama, the budget would never have covered 7 nightcrawler's white house scene but the result is better because the director had a chance to focus more on the story in the film. X2 can't be called a comic movie today compared to mcu movies X2 feels like a Daniel Craig James Bond film or one of the recent Mission Impossible films.

    Endgame has dozens of Heroes and villians fighting each other with a war going on around them
    Like every Avengers movie. Its now the worst trope of superhero movies. I think Marvel can compromise by uping the visuals. James Cameron was smart, he knew Avatar had a crap cliche story so he went all out with making the movie look impossibly beautiful.

    Theres nothing Objectively bad about it.
    No, there is nothing objectivity bad about it. Endgame looks quite good compared to Black Panther or Ant-Man. There are definitely better ways to do this type of war battle. Reason I brought up Avatar and I know you would accuse me of bias but Zack Sndyer would have done a better job with the Endgame's final battle as a filmmaker, just keep him away from the screenplay.


    You dont like it and that's fine, but the masses loved it.
    The masses are the least people that know or care about the quality of a movie. Movies have been separated from the mass blockbuster consumption type of movies to the much smaller grounded art story driven films that is more aware of its filmmaking quality.
    Last edited by Beaddle; 08-24-2019 at 03:29 PM.

  5. #575
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    It will come as a shock to you , I like everything you said. I now wish you would see why I think MCU movies don't really make sense anymore in a larger context.

    The Nightcrawler White House scene was primary practical effects with a secondary addition of cgi. Its a progressive way to do superhero action scenes. its expensive and exhausting but worth it in the end, this is the reason most good xmen movies were primarily drama, the budget would never have cover 7 nightcrawler's white house scene but i think the result is better because the director had a chance to focus more on the story in the film. X2 can't be called a comic movie today compared to mcu movies X2 feels like a Daniel Craig James Bond film or one of the recent Mission Impossible films.



    Like every Avengers movie. Its now the worst trope of superhero movies. I think Marvel can compromise by uping the visuals. James Cameron was smart, he knew Avatar had a crap cliche story so he went all out with making the movie look impossibly beautiful.



    No, there is nothing objectivity bad about it. Endgame looks quite good compared to Black Panther or Ant-Man. There are definitely better ways to do this type of war battle. Reason I brought up Avatar and I know you would accuse me of bias but Zack Sndyer would have done a better job with the Endgame's final battle as a filmmaker, just keep him away from the screenplay.




    The masses are the least people that know or care about the quality of a movie. Movies have been separated from the mass blockbuster consumption type of movies to the much smaller grounded art story driven films that is more aware of its filmmaking quality.
    Eh... I judging from the ending of Justice League, I can't say I'm as willing as you are to give Sndyer the benefit of the doubt as far as doing a better job with the End Game ending.

  6. #576
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    Eh... I judging from the ending of Justice League, I can't say I'm as willing as you are to give Sndyer the benefit of the doubt as far as doing a better job with the End Game ending.
    Well I never mentioned justice league. Zack Snyder's visual finests are 300, Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice.

  7. #577
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,856

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Well I never mentioned justice league. Zack Snyder's visual finests are 300, Man of Steel and Dawn of Justice.
    To me comparing the ending of Justice League to the ending of the Avengers End Game is apples to apples. Justice League gives up a descent idea of what an invasion by a powerful alien and his army battling a group of superheroes would look like under Snyder.

  8. #578
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    To me comparing the ending of Justice League to the ending of the Avengers End Game is apples to apples. Justice League gives up a descent idea of what an invasion by a powerful alien and his army battling a group of superheroes would look like under Snyder.
    For some unexplained reason Justice League looked quite bad to Dawn of Justice , Man of Steel and 300. All were done by Snyder. Wasn't JL the movie that was suppose to transition DC to an MCU clone under whedon's direction? could explain why it looks so different to the other Snyder films.

    This is a take from dawn of justice, everything about this movie's CGI and Cinematography looks cleaner, sharper and more polished than Endgame. it looks less like an animated sequences of battle with real life characters to Endgame and it doesnt look like JL.


  9. #579
    King of Wakanda Midvillian1322's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    7,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    It will come as a shock to you , I like everything you said. I now wish you would see why I think MCU movies don't really make sense anymore in a larger context.

    The Nightcrawler White House scene was primary practical effects with a secondary addition of cgi. Its a progressive way to do superhero action scenes. its expensive and exhausting but worth it in the end, this is the reason most good xmen movies were primarily drama, the budget would never have covered 7 nightcrawler's white house scene but the result is better because the director had a chance to focus more on the story in the film. X2 can't be called a comic movie today compared to mcu movies X2 feels like a Daniel Craig James Bond film or one of the recent Mission Impossible films.



    Like every Avengers movie. Its now the worst trope of superhero movies. I think Marvel can compromise by uping the visuals. James Cameron was smart, he knew Avatar had a crap cliche story so he went all out with making the movie look impossibly beautiful.



    No, there is nothing objectivity bad about it. Endgame looks quite good compared to Black Panther or Ant-Man. There are definitely better ways to do this type of war battle. Reason I brought up Avatar and I know you would accuse me of bias but Zack Sndyer would have done a better job with the Endgame's final battle as a filmmaker, just keep him away from the screenplay.




    The masses are the least people that know or care about the quality of a movie. Movies have been separated from the mass blockbuster consumption type of movies to the much smaller grounded art story driven films that is more aware of its filmmaking quality.
    I hear what your saying but don't even agree in the slightest. Endgames final battle was praised by most people who watched the movie, minus some people who hated the Women of Marvel shot. You can repeat the same things over and over as many times as you want your not gonna convince anyone that Endgame looked like a cartoon. Just Thanos alone as gotten heaps of praise for the quality of the CGI.

    No matter how much you wish it's so your unpopular opinion isnt the truth. So theres not really anything to debate because your working from these opinion of yours like they're the reality of the situation. Most people dont think the MCU is every bad superhero trope. Alot of people would say they are the current bar by which to judge quality. No significant number of people think they dont make sense anymore.

    So what your saying is it doesnt matter what the masses think is quality. It's just about what you like and people who agree with you?

  10. #580
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midvillian1322 View Post
    I hear what your saying but don't even agree in the slightest. Endgames final battle was praised by most people who watched the movie, minus some people who hated the Women of Marvel shot. You can repeat the same things over and over as many times as you want your not gonna convince anyone that Endgame looked like a cartoon. Just Thanos alone as gotten heaps of praise for the quality of the CGI.

    ?
    It was praised as the ultimate comic book greeky fantasy come true or something in the lines of that, which is not saying much. Like we need comic movies to be defined by more massive cgi battles. if anything it makes comic movies look bad compared to other science fiction movies. The praise has zero to do with the kind of praise that Avatar , Blade Runner or Jurassic Park 93 CGI got.

    no matter how much you wish it's so your unpopular opinion isnt the truth. So theres not really anything to debate because your working from these opinion of yours like they're the reality of the situation. Most people dont think the MCU is every bad superhero trope. Alot of people would say they are the current bar by which to judge quality. No significant number of people think they dont make sense anymore.
    My opinion is only unpopular in the mcu kingdom. let's face it, it is also not that popular in the general marvel kingdom where you now have to take into account X2 itself or Spiderman 2, films for some weird reasons although made in the 2000s, don't look as animated as mcu movies. I blame this on disney though, i think disney likes to make marvel look as animated as possible so the kids market don't loose interest. Disney is scared that once you ground an mcu movie even a bit, it looses the kid friendly quality and that is not true. Sam Raimi's Spiderman 2 sold as much toys as star wars.


    So what your saying is it doesnt matter what the masses think is quality. It's just about what you like and people who agree with you?
    The masses would be the first people to tell you that they know the difference between aliens coming to earth like they see in the avengers movies to when they showed up in Close encounters of Third Kind. The masses are aware that many of the mainstream movies they watch are usually brainless films that does nothing to evolve their minds but that is not what they are looking for ,what they want is to have fun and blow off steam in cinema. This theory has proven to be true. After Mickey Rourke finished filming Iron Man 2, he was surprised by the final product and he had quite some unkind things to say about his experience. https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/mickey...ing-iron-man-2.

    "It's like when I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought ... You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors, not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.

    Well, you know, it is f**king too bad, but it's their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don't want to be a part of that. I don't want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they're calling the shots they ... You know, I didn't work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh f**k 'em, I'm just going to mail it in. But I'm not that kind of guy. I'm never going to mail it in''


    Do you think just because the masses went to see the film, it didn't mean they didn't know what the film represented? And to think that Iron Man 2 only got after this with the third iron man movie, this is when MCU stopped fully making sense to me anymore.
    Last edited by Beaddle; 08-24-2019 at 08:57 PM.

  11. #581
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    It’s expected that you disagree as you believe mcu has no flaws and no bad movies.
    rumor.jpg

    As I've stated before, I don't think that. In fact, I have named MCU moves often on that I think are indeed flawed or I don't like that much. IM2 is a mess of a movie (and I'm not big on Iron Man outside of the group movies in the first place). Don't like Hulk. Thor 2 is a weak film (and I find the first to be okay, at best). Avengers 2 has a few problems. As far as MCU flaws in general, I'm a firm believer that the MCU took a long time to have good villain characters. They also tend to have pretty weak love stories (maybe four-ish that work, at least IMHO?). In a discussion about specific movies, I could probably offer specific critiques about what went right and wrong.

    Sorry, but I don't fit into the box you're hellbent on forcing me into.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    To you mcu has does nothing wrong and we are fools to bet against them. These are your words.
    Taken out of context; I've used this phrase when future projects are met with skepticism before they even start. My point is not that the MCU can do no wrong ("failure is always" an option are also my words when it comes to the future of this franchise), but that Marvel Studios has managed to make a lot of things we weren't sure they'd be able to pull of be at least financially successful, if not artistically good. So, don't read "they've done nothing wrong," but "let's give them the benefit of the doubt until it does blow up in their faces."

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    The sad reason their critical reception and business experts holds no value to anymore who has no financial share
    If you're saying that it doesn't benefit us if the movies make money, uh, yeah? Still, that doesn't really have much to do with the actual point; as long as the MCU is financially successful, Marvel Studios will probably continue to produce it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Box office numbers that Disney called a failure
    https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Why-...ure-80867.html

    can you imagine an xmen or DC fan saying dark phoenix and JL was a box office success? Hardly.
    All right, I was mistaken on this one. It happens.
    Last edited by WebLurker; 08-24-2019 at 10:47 PM.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  12. #582
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,193

    Default Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    As for RT score, I rather just use real film criticism staring in my face, the poor choice in story, misguided directing by whedon due to studio interference that was obvious in the film, poor cinematography, bad film editing, disjointed plot, poor use of characters especially ultron himself and terrible childish screenplay of age of ulton is what made it a bad movie, even a bad Disney movie since I have watched better Pixar kid fridnely films to age of ultron.
    vauge and unconvincing.jpg

    As I've said before, I agree that Marvel Studios stuffed stuff into Ultron that shouldn't've been there, but I'm not sure where you're coming from on the other stuff. Don't think it was a masterpiece (seen better cinematography, sure), but I liked some of the ideas in it. (Also, for someone who's claiming to use film criticism, you've hardly ever invoked it and utterly ignored when I've used similar reasoning to support my opinions. Also, your whole "serious is good, humorous is bad" idea is not founded on film criticism nor has any place in it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Critics were very irresponsible for giving it a good rt score, good reason critics words means nothing anymore.
    Seriously, it's "irresponsible" to disagree with you? Dude, you have problem with your MCU hate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    What you tell your coworkers has nothing to do with me.
    It's got everything to do with me and what I think, which was what you were taking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    What you told me is GOTG movies have more character development than almost 800 worth of star trek episode
    As already noted in my previous post, I did not tell you that. I don't even believe that. Misunderstanding what someone says is one thing; lying about it is something else. My point is that the two Guardians movies pack a lot of character development for its' whole cast of characters, including some of the specific ones, something that I think is hard to do within that number of movies. Forget comparisons to other franchises then and focus on that if you want to refute me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    plus telling me untrue things about Spock’s character in a trek movie just to make fat thor look less bad?
    I don't actually recall what I sad about '09 Spock in relation to Endgame Thor, much less why I said anything in the first place. Do I think that '09 Spock was badly written and an utter waste of the best casting choice the movie had other then Karl Urban? Yeah, but, as noted before, I never liked Quinto Spock's writing since the very beginning. A Marvel movie made years later has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with having seen all the original Star Trek movies and almost all of the original TV show. Besides, whether '09 Spock and "fat Thor" do or do not work in their specific movies are two different questions. (Also, if you want further examples that I'm not

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    That all sums of the biggest mcu fans who thinks MCU is the greatest gift to mankind.
    I find it arrogant, at best, that you think you know me better than I do myself. I've outright told you I'm more of a Trekkie and Star Wars fan then a MCU fan by a country mile and you still persist in saying otherwise. That tells me that you either don't care about the facts or need continue believing false information to maintain your position. Neither give me much reason to believe that you have a good argument in this "conversation."

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    which one? It cant be spectacular spiderman. Disney cancelled it and replaced it with a new series that most spiderman fans disliked. I think this is where the deslike for disney spiderman started long before he showed up in mcu movies.
    It can't be the video game either, the gamers made it clear he was not going to be following the footsteps of any movie. PS4 Spiderman was an original indie adult take on the hero. it can’t be the raimi movies and it can’t be spiderman tas. None of the 4 are factually similar to mcu spiderman.
    Can't speak for the video game or the old cartoon (haven't seen it and don't own a console), but I am very familiar with the Raimi movies and Spectacular cartoon and do find them very much in line with the MCU movies. A lot of focus on Peter juggling his two lives. The power and responsibility themes are explored in different ways. All of them have ironic situations and humor along side more serious themes and plot points. Disagree if you will, but I'm not pulling this out of my butt like you're suggesting. (Also, try comparing the MCU Spidey to the Ultimate comics that they're based on sometime; a lot of the stuff in the movies has parallels to that, like Spidey being the rookie in world of established heroes and wanting to make it to the big leagues.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    the general outside sampling is showcasing many people were never wholeheartedly on board with mcu spiderman, if sony can get it together.
    You started a thread recently bemoaning Sony being villainized for the deal falling through in the first place. Now you're telling me that most people are pleased that Sony is going solo and and ending the MCU series? Pick a story and stick with it.

    (FIY, this majority you speak of that wants Spidey to go solo, can't find them, unlike the people mad the series is ending. Color me skeptical, but I really think the majority here want Spidey to stay in the MCU.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    spiderman was never a pixar character. I dont get obsessed with something that I know was not true from the get go. I just find it cringe worthy.
    You keep bringing it up despite me saying repeatedly that the analogy I was making is not what you're saying it is and you've been ignoring my explanations of what I actually meant in favor of this little buzz word. Yeah, that's obsession. (As I said before, just stop with the "Pixar Spider-Man" thing and actually address what I said. I get that you don't like stuff that doesn't fit into the boxes you'd like them to, but life's not that tidy.)
    Last edited by WebLurker; 08-24-2019 at 10:47 PM.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  13. #583
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    6,193

    Default

    (part 3)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Homecoming is worse than ASM as a spiderman movie. is it an opinon? sure, does ASM have better logical reasons to back itself up as the better spiderman movie? Most definitely.
    Okay, let's see here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Here are some
    Teen Spiderman works better than pixar kid spiderman
    First off, ixnay on the Ixarpay Pidersay-Anmay. Secondly, I really don't think Garfield was given as well-written Spider-Man to play and I don't think you need to compare him to anyone else to make the case; his characterization shifts all the time (is he a goofy social outcast, a brooding loner out of some YA novel, vengeful, etc.). This is a Spider-Man who becomes Spider-Man not out of guilt over his mistakes but for revenge. His relationship with his love interest is badly underwritten. Also, in a memo r.e. the second movie, Kevin Feige made the observation that Peter was was more honorable then the moves where making him and I think that's a fair assessment. In this movie alone, he steals an intern's identity and finds if funny when the real deal is kicked out. He gets bit by the spider because he was breaking in and entering a lab. He treats Gwen horribly in the breakup (a sign of things to come) and his word mean little if anything, given how easily he breaks his promise to Capt. Stacy (and think about this; he broke up with Gwen in the first place because of this promise and treats it like he could never go against it, and then acts like it meant nothing days later? What the heck, hero?).

    And that's not going into the sequel, where he's constantly Yeah, I would take Holland's Spidey over Garfield's any day, given that that version is actually a decent human being, which is a key part of who Spider-Man is. Even the more flawed takes on the character (the early ASM comics where he could be quite the little punk and the washed up Peter B. from the Spider-Verse movie) understood this. (Also, as noted before, Holland's take is based on the Ultimate version, so that's the first comparison point.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Uncle Ben is better than Tony Stark
    Michael Sheen was wasted as Ben, IMHO (heck, he was replaced by Capt. Stacy in the sequel as the dead person driving Spidey). Sheen did good with what we was given, but Ben is part of the origin story, and ASM botched that big time trying to do something different from the first Raimi movie (which got it right, by the way). This is the movie where Uncle Ben died for chocolate milk, for pete's sake. Iron Man is a different story for Peter and one that got a lot more room to breathe and develop with an actual arc. However, that's a story arc, not part of an origin story, it's not a good comparison. Sheen's Ben compares best to the Raimi take on the character, since they were trying to do the same thing, with different goals and needs from the Iron Man story. IMHO, no content, Raimi did it perfectly (heck, audio was used from that version to recreate the Spider-Verse take.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Better take of aunt may
    Maybe? Sally Field was utterly wasted as May (even more then Michael Sheen was), so I find Tomei's character worked better in that she was better integrated into the story and feeling less like an afterthought. Performance-wise, I think both did well. I frankly never had a huge problem with May being aged down; it always seemed odd that Peter would have an aunt significantly older then his own parents (remember, his father and uncle are brothers) and Tomei was in her fifties when she started, which is a highly realistic age for a woman with a fifteen-year-old nephew. More importantly, to me, is that I liked how Tomei and Holland interacted. My favorite take on the characters was in the Ultimate comics, where they were shown to have a mother/son relationship, something that I never really got anywhere else (even the Raimi movies, as good as Rosemary Harris was, did feel more like a grandmother/grandson; well done for that, but still, something different). Tomei and Holland nailed the mother/son style dynamic and really got me onboard with the family. I guess the way I see it, I think Field was good update on the original comics version, but was hardly given anything to do, while Tomei was different from the source material, but was better used.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    A villain who no ties to Tony Stark
    I thought that Mysterio and Spider-Man's both having connections and legacies of sorts to Iron Man was an interesting foil. Also, wasn't Vulture primarily interested in his criminal enterprise and stopping Spidey from screwing it up after Iron Man took his job? (Only saw it once, but I seem to recall that Spidey had far more ties and plot connections to Iron Man).

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    The important themes of Spiderman comics.
    As indicated before, I think the movies did do that. I mean, Spidey's trying to figure out where he fits into a post-Iron Man world touch a lot on power and responsibility, not to mention his two lives pulling him both ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Tries to give Peter a back story unlike homecoming where his back story is to become an avenger
    That's cribbed from the Ultimate comics, although it's given stronger focus then the source material did. IMHO, I wasn't bothered by it, but I will agree that I prefer street-level Spidey. As far as kinda assuming you know the origin, ; I can see both sides of the issue (it being esp. important to the character and his motivations vs. "we already know the story and you can watch the movie about it if you don't").

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Good portrayal of Gwen Stacey.
    The MCU never had Gwen. IMHO, Gwen was really badly written but had a good actress who couldn't quite cover all the cracks. But the MCU has it's share of bad or flaccid romances (Thor and Jane, anyone?) so it's not like it's a flaw that stands out unless you're comparing her to Raimi MJ or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    it’s not hate, there is truthful evidence to support my position.
    All I see are opinions, a lot of then not even explained much, if that, and a lot of false statements about me to further your case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Spiderman sells comics, he sells movies, he sells video games, he sells toys, he was a well established comic book property before the mcu , hardly any spiderman fan will ever call it revolting just because he is now leaving the mcu.
    What's that got to do with whether people want or don't want him to leave. I find the situation "revolting" just because it cancels a movie I was looking forward to. Whether or not Spidey sells outside of that movie has nothing to do with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaddle View Post
    Even Weblurker, the biggest mcu fan I know had to agree that the CGI scenes of Nighcralwer in X2 looked more life action and less animated than Endgame.
    Why are you so obsessed with making me your straw man MCU fan?

    In any event, I distinctly recall in the conversation making it clear that I didn't have a problem with the CGI effects on Thanos and that both it and the X2 did their jobs well with the tools they used. Heck, I've seen all CGI characters who were far more emotive and seemed more real then X2 Nightcrawler. I've seen whole movies with better openings then the X2 one.
    Last edited by WebLurker; 08-24-2019 at 10:46 PM.
    Doctor Strange: "You are the right person to replace Logan."
    X-23: "I know there are people who disapprove... Guys on the Internet mainly."
    (All-New Wolverine #4)

  14. #584
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Taken out of context; I've used this phrase when future projects are met with skepticism before they even start. My point is not that the MCU can do no wrong ("failure is always" an option are also my words when it comes to the future of this franchise), but that Marvel Studios has managed to make a lot of things we weren't sure they'd be able to pull of be at least financially successful, if not artistically good. So, don't read "they've done nothing wrong," but "let's give them the benefit of the doubt until it does blow up in their faces."
    You can't eat your cake and have it. you can't say we are fools to bet against mcu and say we should not judge their future projects, the reason why you think we are fools to bet against them is because you think anything mcu does will turn out great in the future. That is what betting is.

    You can judge mcu vs another mcu movie. try and judge mcu against the best spiderman or xmen movies, its becomes a physical fight between boys vs men, regardless of how good those boys are they are still boys. disney boys of all groups. I tell my kid cousins to go to the kids swimming pool so they don't get drowned swimming with me.


    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    vauge and unconvincing.jpg

    As I've said before, I agree that Marvel Studios stuffed stuff into Ultron that shouldn't've been there, but I'm not sure where you're coming from on the other stuff. Don't think it was a masterpiece (seen better cinematography, sure), but I liked some of the ideas in it. (Also, for someone who's claiming to use film criticism, you've hardly ever invoked it and utterly ignored when I've used similar reasoning to support my opinions. Also, your whole "serious is good, humorous is bad" idea is not founded on film criticism nor has any place in it.)
    Humorous is bad for Marvel, so the criticism is fair. If you think I don’t know film criticism why did I bring up the visuals of X2 and Endgame? Why did I talk about the writing with endgame’s time travel? Why was I so bothered by fat thor? Why do I care about how the earlier comic films were judged post batman and robin?
    Seriously, it's "irresponsible" to disagree with you? Dude, you have problem with your MCU hate.
    It’s not hate to call out how critics have become very irresponsible. They brought their own irrelevance to themselves.

    As already noted in my previous post, I did not tell you that. I don't even believe that. Misunderstanding what someone says is one thing; lying about it is something else. My point is that the two Guardians movies pack a lot of character development for its' whole cast of characters, including some of the specific ones, something that I think is hard to do within that number of movies. Forget comparisons to other franchises then and focus on that if you want to refute me.
    As a trekkie myself who loves trek for the philosophy, social commentary, characters, picard’s speeches, kirk’s war mind and drama and dislike GOTG because its brainless movie that takes place in space, I think anyone that tries to sell the idea that GOTG has the same equivalent of character development that trek gets in tv gets a big thumbs down to me.

    I don't actually recall what I sad about '09 Spock in relation to Endgame Thor, much less why I said anything in the first place. Do I think that '09 Spock was badly written and an utter waste of the best casting choice the movie had other then Karl Urban? Yeah, but, as noted before, I never liked Quinto Spock's writing since the very beginning. A Marvel movie made years later has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with having seen all the original Star Trek movies and almost all of the original TV show. Besides, whether '09 Spock and "fat Thor" do or do not work in their specific movies are two different questions. (Also, if you want further examples that I'm not
    Quitno would be badly written if spock was in the mcu . MCU would probably think, Vulcans been broody or emotionless means they are not funny enough. Anyone that calls Quinto's compound characterisation of spock badly written and constantly defend mcu characters, especially GOTG who are all mostly shells of their comics and full on clown gags makes me laugh. my point about quinto's spock to endgame was he handled and reacted to truma better than thor ever did.

    I find it arrogant, at best, that you think you know me better than I do myself. I've outright told you I'm more of a Trekkie and Star Wars fan then a MCU fan by a country mile and you still persist in saying otherwise. That tells me that you either don't care about the facts or need continue believing false information to maintain your position. Neither give me much reason to believe that you have a good argument in this "conversation."
    Except star trek and mcu movies have nothing to do with eachother. Look at how star trek 09 explains their time travel with little to no plotholes.



    I don't know what Endgame time travel is about again. star trek 09 > mcu films.


    Can't speak for the video game or the old cartoon (haven't seen it and don't own a console), but I am very familiar with the Raimi movies and Spectacular cartoon and do find them very much in line with the MCU movies. A lot of focus on Peter juggling his two lives. The power and responsibility themes are explored in different ways. All of them have ironic situations and humor along side more serious themes and plot points. Disagree if you will, but I'm not pulling this out of my butt like you're suggesting. (Also, try comparing the MCU Spidey to the Ultimate comics that they're based on sometime; a lot of the stuff in the movies has parallels to that, like Spidey being the rookie in world of established heroes and wanting to make it to the big leagues.)
    if this was true, mcu spiderman would have escape raiami spiderman's shadow after being in 5 mcu films, Christian bale escaped michael keaton’s batman shadow. Why can’t Holland do the same with Tobey?As for spectacular spiderman. are you are still confusing him with Spiderman XD.



    You started a thread recently bemoaning Sony being villainized for the deal falling through in the first place. Now you're telling me that most people are pleased that Sony is going solo and and ending the MCU series? Pick a story and stick with it.

    (FIY, this majority you speak of that wants Spidey to go solo, can't find them, unlike the people mad the series is ending. Color me skeptical, but I really think the majority here want Spidey to stay in the MCU.)
    Sony is been villainlised outhere.. those people are not the same people who remembered sony made the best spiderman films and have the potential to do it again. both stories are true.

    You keep bringing it up despite me saying repeatedly that the analogy I was making is not what you're saying it is and you've been ignoring my explanations of what I actually meant in favor of this little buzz word. Yeah, that's obsession. (As I said before, just stop with the "Pixar Spider-Man" thing and actually address what I said. I get that you don't like stuff that doesn't fit into the boxes you'd like them to, but life's not that tidy.)
    What is the code on Pixar and violent display? A person mentioned on the spiderman forum, he found it odd when he saw homecoming spiderman was not throwing blows. That sounded like a pixar code mark. This is not the Spiderman I know or I saw in the original movies. Did Disney ban Spiderman for throwing blows in the movies? It won’t surprise me.
    Last edited by Beaddle; 08-25-2019 at 11:39 AM.

  15. #585
    BANNED Beaddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebLurker View Post
    (part 3)

    First off, ixnay on the Ixarpay Pidersay-Anmay. Secondly, I really don't think Garfield was given as well-written Spider-Man to play and I don't think you need to compare him to anyone else to make the case; his characterization shifts all the time (is he a goofy social outcast, a brooding loner out of some YA novel, vengeful, etc.). This is a Spider-Man who becomes Spider-Man not out of guilt over his mistakes but for revenge. His relationship with his love interest is badly underwritten. Also, in a memo r.e. the second movie, Kevin Feige made the observation that Peter was was more honorable then the moves where making him and I think that's a fair assessment. In this movie alone, he steals an intern's identity and finds if funny when the real deal is kicked out. He gets bit by the spider because he was breaking in and entering a lab. He treats Gwen horribly in the breakup (a sign of things to come) and his word mean little if anything, given how easily he breaks his promise to Capt. Stacy (and think about this; he broke up with Gwen in the first place because of this promise and treats it like he could never go against it, and then acts like it meant nothing days later? What the heck, hero?).

    And that's not going into the sequel, where he's constantly Yeah, I would take Holland's Spidey over Garfield's any day, given that that version is actually a decent human being, which is a key part of who Spider-Man is. Even the more flawed takes on the character (the early ASM comics where he could be quite the little punk and the washed up Peter B. from the Spider-Verse movie) understood this. (Also, as noted before, Holland's take is based on the Ultimate version, so that's the first comparison point.)

    .
    Garfield does not become spiderman out of guilt. he became spiderman because uncle ben died and he felt responsible. I think this is when people stated with the stop killing ben. not that they have it worse with tony replacing ben, its all like, bring uncle ben back. the point is, he is spiderman because he realizes with great power comes great responsibilities that is forever better than mcu spiderman who is spiderman because he wants to be an avenger

    He does not treat gwen horribly, any more than you can argue tobey’s peter did with mj. like gwen and mj, peter develops complex and difficult relationships with women because he is spiderman, if anyone thinks the cliché puppy love story between him and mj is any good in homecoming that is their taste. Peter is known for having difficult romances even with black cat, that was displayed in the garfield movies . it got gwen killed in the end. Homecoming is not even close to tapping into that level of maturity we have seen with peter’s love life.

    Michael Sheen was wasted as Ben, IMHO (heck, he was replaced by Capt. Stacy in the sequel as the dead person driving Spidey). Sheen did good with what we was given, but Ben is part of the origin story, and ASM botched that big time trying to do something different from the first Raimi movie (which got it right, by the way). This is the movie where Uncle Ben died for chocolate milk, for pete's sake. Iron Man is a different story for Peter and one that got a lot more room to breathe and develop with an actual arc. However, that's a story arc, not part of an origin story, it's not a good comparison. Sheen's Ben compares best to the Raimi take on the character, since they were trying to do the same thing, with different goals and needs from the Iron Man story. IMHO, no content, Raimi did it perfectly (heck, audio was used from that version to recreate the Spider-Verse take.)
    Sigh, Michael Sheen played an okay ben. In homecoming RDJ is almost as bad as Mystique in apocalypse, they are in the movies for a paycheck. the important point is uncle's ben existed in the garfield movies and left an impact the defines spiderman. raimi did it better but tony's impact on holland spiderman is far more irritating and unworthy than michael sheen.
    Uncle Ben died because of milk? Really? At least uncle ben plays a relatable person, we could look up too that is more fitting for spiderman as a mentor not pompous tony stark and his Avengers auditions. You know in the xmen comics, cyclops slaps Avengers in the face anytime they come with their peace keeping avengers audition offerings?

    Maybe? Sally Field was utterly wasted as May (even more then Michael Sheen was), so I find Tomei's character worked better in that she was better integrated into the story and feeling less like an afterthought. Performance-wise, I think both did well. I frankly never had a huge problem with May being aged down; it always seemed odd that Peter would have an aunt significantly older then his own parents (remember, his father and uncle are brothers) and Tomei was in her fifties when she started, which is a highly realistic age for a woman with a fifteen-year-old nephew. More importantly, to me, is that I liked how Tomei and Holland interacted. My favorite take on the characters was in the Ultimate comics, where they were shown to have a mother/son relationship, something that I never really got anywhere else (even the Raimi movies, as good as Rosemary Harris was, did feel more like a grandmother/grandson; well done for that, but still, something different). Tomei and Holland nailed the mother/son style dynamic and really got me onboard with the family. I guess the way I see it, I think Field was good update on the original comics version, but was hardly given anything to do, while Tomei was different from the source material, but was better used.

    Sally captured a traditional aunt may, and looked after peter well and gave him good advice and comfort when he needed it, even after his parents background story mess. Tomei is a horrible aunt may because she is wrong from the start. aunt may is not meant to be hot and be like a ''cool mum''. she is supposes to be a wise elder lady, who you could tell struggles in life and still deals with uncle ben's death and uses that to keep peter on a right part. Tomei failed to recapture the most important element of aunt may. she may be a good character for the mcu but she is not aunt may, mcu should call her something else.

    I thought that Mysterio and Spider-Man's both having connections and legacies of sorts to Iron Man was an interesting foil. Also, wasn't Vulture primarily interested in his criminal enterprise and stopping Spidey from screwing it up after Iron Man took his job? (Only saw it once, but I seem to recall that Spidey had far more ties and plot connections to Iron Man).
    who has a better rogues gallary in marvel? X-Men? Daredeveil? F4? why tie him to another character? this is not something that can be defended in the rich world of spiderman. maybe an iron man villain can have more ties to black panther but not spiderman.

    That's cribbed from the Ultimate comics, although it's given stronger focus then the source material did. IMHO, I wasn't bothered by it, but I will agree that I prefer street-level Spidey. As far as kinda assuming you know the origin, ; I can see both sides of the issue (it being esp. important to the character and his motivations vs. "we already know the story and you can watch the movie about it if you don't").
    Peter has a back story in the ultmate comics. whatever back story about petter written in the film even if it's a new concept is likely to be far more interesting than peter spending his time wanting to be an avenger.

    The MCU never had Gwen. IMHO, Gwen was really badly written but had a good actress who couldn't quite cover all the cracks. But the MCU has it's share of bad or flaccid romances (Thor and Jane, anyone?) so it's not like it's a flaw that stands out unless you're comparing her to Raimi MJ or something.
    They have MJ or shall I say they have a love interest. Funniest thing between the garfield vs raimi movies. spiderman fans seem to love the peter/gwen romance more than peter/mj. I think this is because gwen did not get captured three times as MJ or she and peter had more common interests. one thing peter and gwen had was a realistic complicated relationship with grave consequences, holland and zedandya looked like they stepped out of disney land playing snowhite and prince charming.
    What's that got to do with whether people want or don't want him to leave. I find the situation "revolting" just because it cancels a movie I was looking forward to. Whether or not Spidey sells outside of that movie has nothing to do with that.
    It has everything to do with it because it proves beyond any reasonable doubt he does not need the MCU.

    Why are you so obsessed with making me your straw man MCU fan?

    In any event, I distinctly recall in the conversation making it clear that I didn't have a problem with the CGI effects on Thanos and that both it and the X2 did their jobs well with the tools they used. Heck, I've seen all CGI characters who were far more emotive and seemed more real then X2 Nightcrawler. I've seen whole movies with better openings then the X2 one.
    This may be true in the larger scale of science fiction and action movies but this was about superhero movies not movies in general. this was about MCU constant animated look in their movie that makes the visual from X2 , look impossibly good to the MCU animated looking movies. Again film criticism is what I am doing here.
    Last edited by Beaddle; 08-25-2019 at 11:46 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •