Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 302
  1. #46
    Astonishing Member Frobisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    3,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thwhtGuardian View Post
    Hey, at least those people have this going for them, when ever they type "SJW" or "too woke" I know I can ignore just about everything else they have to say. Dog-whistles can sometimes be hard to hear, so I applaud them for just coming right out and saying what they mean.
    LOL, the other day someone just come out and say something was “woke” because they’d added a black character. Literally just one black character. Remember the adage “when someone show you who they really are, believe them first time.”

  2. #47
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    8,906

    Default

    It's sad that it's 2022 and it's still considered a bad thing if non-WASP characters get the spotlight just because it was decided to cast a non-WASP actor in a role that could've gone to anyone.
    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)

  3. #48
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chicago_bastard View Post
    They have been "campaigning" for awards for years, that's nothing new, it just didn't grab your attention until now.

    And could you name the MCU movies that are made to appeal to Oscar voters because I fail to see them. Shang-Chi and Black Widow were pretty much within the lines of prior MCU movies, NWH is pure fan service that couldn't be further away from pandering to snobby Oscar voters. Eternals is the only one a case could be made but ironically that still landed better with audiences than with critics so your point remains a moot one.
    You're probably right there. I must admit I didn't know Marvel Studios did any campaigning for awards, so I thought this was a new phenomenon. I agree with you that most MCU stuff is traditional superhero fare. I just thought WandaVision being a homage to sitcoms of yesteryear was something Marvel execs KNEW would gain a lot of appreciation from television critics and possibly get some Emmy Awards (which it did). I think Disney thought that the Eternals being sort of Marvel's version of a "historical epic" might gain them some Oscar recognition as well. So I think both products were "awards-baity." I think Sony and Disney are campaigning again and it's annoying to me:

    https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/osc...home-for-real/

  4. #49
    Incredible Member chicago_bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert1981 View Post
    You're probably right there. I must admit I didn't know Marvel Studios did any campaigning for awards, so I thought this was a new phenomenon. I agree with you that most MCU stuff is traditional superhero fare. I just thought WandaVision being a homage to sitcoms of yesteryear was something Marvel execs KNEW would gain a lot of appreciation from television critics and possibly get some Emmy Awards (which it did). I think Disney thought that the Eternals being sort of Marvel's version of a "historical epic" might gain them some Oscar recognition as well. So I think both products were "awards-baity." I think Sony and Disney are campaigning again and it's annoying to me:

    https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/osc...home-for-real/
    Just because some clickbait sites claim they are campaigning NWH doesn't mean anything. All this rather uninformed author brings up for his claim are For Your Consideration ads. Guess what, Disney is doing that for each of their movies every year. They did the same for Endgame: https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2019/...ters-revealed/

    Here is Disney's official For Your Consideration page for this year: https://disneystudiosawards.com/

    Just click on one of the movies and look at the "consider" tag and you'll see that they are literally suggesting every live-action movie for Best Picture, Best Director and basically every nomination possible. For NWH it's no different. The only one of all these live-action films they are doing a true Best Picture campaign for is West Side Story.

    The only time they made a bigger campaign for an MCU movie was for Black Panther because they rightly assumed the cultural impact could lead to a nomination. All the others are more out of obligation.
    Tolstoy will live forever. Some people do. But that's not enough. It's not the length of a life that matters, just the depth of it. The chances we take. The paths we choose. How we go on when our hearts break. Hearts always break and so we bend with our hearts. And we sway. But in the end what matters is that we loved... and lived.

  5. #50
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chicago_bastard View Post
    Just because some clickbait sites claim they are campaigning NWH doesn't mean anything. All this rather uninformed author brings up for his claim are For Your Consideration ads. Guess what, Disney is doing that for each of their movies every year. They did the same for Endgame: https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2019/...ters-revealed/

    Here is Disney's official For Your Consideration page for this year: https://disneystudiosawards.com/

    Just click on one of the movies and look at the "consider" tag and you'll see that they are literally suggesting every live-action movie for Best Picture, Best Director and basically every nomination possible. For NWH it's no different. The only one of all these live-action films they are doing a true Best Picture campaign for is West Side Story.

    The only time they made a bigger campaign for an MCU movie was for Black Panther because they rightly assumed the cultural impact could lead to a nomination. All the others are more out of obligation.
    Interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing! I got into the MCU a bit late, so I wasn't aware that Disney was doing this some years ago. If Sony and Disney are doing this stuff out of obligation, it's cool. I do think it's POSSIBLE that Scorsese's comments about what constitutes as "cinema" DID bother Feige a lot though. I can see the points of view of both sides when it comes to IP dominance in theaters, but I think the argument should be laid to rest. Scorsese said his piece and I don't think he wants to discuss the matter further. Feige is still producing quality products so I hope that continues too.

  6. #51
    Incredible Member chicago_bastard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert1981 View Post
    Interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing! I got into the MCU a bit late, so I wasn't aware that Disney was doing this some years ago. If Sony and Disney are doing this stuff out of obligation, it's cool. I do think it's POSSIBLE that Scorsese's comments about what constitutes as "cinema" DID bother Feige a lot though. I can see the points of view of both sides when it comes to IP dominance in theaters, but I think the argument should be laid to rest. Scorsese said his piece and I don't think he wants to discuss the matter further. Feige is still producing quality products so I hope that continues too.
    I mean I get your point but I don't think it's a bad thing to mix things up a bit. Trying something different with two out of eight projects this year isn't a general course correction, it just diversifies the output. In the case of Eternals I don't even think it was a successful attempt but I'm okay with the fact that they tried it.
    Tolstoy will live forever. Some people do. But that's not enough. It's not the length of a life that matters, just the depth of it. The chances we take. The paths we choose. How we go on when our hearts break. Hearts always break and so we bend with our hearts. And we sway. But in the end what matters is that we loved... and lived.

  7. #52
    Astonishing Member Albert1981's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chicago_bastard View Post
    I mean I get your point but I don't think it's a bad thing to mix things up a bit. Trying something different with two out of eight projects this year isn't a general course correction, it just diversifies the output. In the case of Eternals I don't even think it was a successful attempt but I'm okay with the fact that they tried it.
    I applaud and appreciate the MCU doing different things, absolutely. I think WandaVision succeeded and the Eternals disappointed. But I think Marvel Studios should keep trying. WandaVision didn't bite off more than it could chew. Eternals had some interesting ideas and looks, but I was underwhelmed by it. But I was also underwhelmed with practically all of Disney's offerings in 2021. But the MCU's approach to moviemaking has been pretty successful (and continues to be so):

    "Woo, good guy meets bad guy, bad guy wins, good guy trains, good guy has emotional encounter with bad guy, good guy wins. The end, now give me millions of dollars"

  8. #53
    CBR's Good Fairy Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Default

    Simple answer: no. It's WAY too soon to know such an accolade, and I doubt the MCU will stand the test of time as the greatest franchise that ever was or ever will be. Bond has 40 years on the MCU, and is still going strong (and I'm not even saying it's the greatest franchise, just the first one that popped in my head). And even then, producer's greatness is more than just franchise. Consistency, quality, originality, longevity, artistry. I'm not sure he ticks all these boxes; let alone ticks them the best.
    "We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."

  9. #54
    Invincible Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    Simple answer: no. It's WAY too soon to know such an accolade, and I doubt the MCU will stand the test of time as the greatest franchise that ever was or ever will be. Bond has 40 years on the MCU, and is still going strong (and I'm not even saying it's the greatest franchise, just the first one that popped in my head). And even then, producer's greatness is more than just franchise. Consistency, quality, originality, longevity, artistry. I'm not sure he ticks all these boxes; let alone ticks them the best.
    The Shaw Brothers Studio run(we'll just set aside the fact that Shaw Organisation was there before it essentially evolved into SBS...) is having a quick laugh at that number.

  10. #55
    CBR's Good Fairy Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    The Shaw Brothers Studio run(we'll just set aside the fact that Shaw Organisation was there before it essentially evolved into SBS...) is having a quick laugh at that number.
    I had to look up Shaw Brothers. I suppose I felt it was obvious that pure longevity isn't the only criteria I was discussing; merely one example of why it's too soon to call in regards to Feige. But for the record, yes, the best producer ever is more than who technically has the longest run producing.
    "We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."

  11. #56
    Astonishing Member Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    Simple answer: no. It's WAY too soon to know such an accolade, and I doubt the MCU will stand the test of time as the greatest franchise that ever was or ever will be. Bond has 40 years on the MCU, and is still going strong (and I'm not even saying it's the greatest franchise, just the first one that popped in my head). And even then, producer's greatness is more than just franchise. Consistency, quality, originality, longevity, artistry. I'm not sure he ticks all these boxes; let alone ticks them the best.
    Yes, great assessment about Bond. Also Bond could change with the times and could push the limits of its spy genre. It is save to say that Daniel Craig is now a strong contender for the best Bond Run, also we do need to consider how much Craig's Bond is different to Pierson Bond even if I dont think 30 years has been a long time. there is only a 4 gap year between Casino Royale and Die Another Day and a lot about Bond changed in those 4 years. I will say Casino Royal and Skyfall can now be considered spy genre classics and the film making of those films were excellent. Better than the Piers Bronson film era.

    MCU movies cant really evolve in those tick boxes you mentioned. Disney owning Marvel has kind of painted them to a corner, they really cant change artistically , what they can use now is to just remix their formula that works big at the box office, bigger than we can ever imagine (No Way Home), which is a remix of the MCU formula. However Box Office is not enough, you need the artistic credibility and I think franchise like Bond, and even Mission Impossible are far much ahead in having both.

    Yeah, thanks for underling artistry I mention it here a lot too and I don't like that people interpreting it as me bashing, so I am glad to see someone else bring it up. Feige biggest flaw is that his movies have no artistry, they are all manufactured one way. We can truthfully talk about how inconsistent the sony and fox marvel movies were, however their best movies had that very important advantage of artistry that Feige producing hands does not want to touch.

    Zack Snyder Snyderverse also had this advantage and for a while he was seen as the rival of Feige. love or hated it, Snyderverse were Zack Snyder envisioned movies, his own artistry that did start some interesting quality conversation about comic films as a whole. While I can agree and see the POV that No Way Home was the most fun comic film last year with the most re-watch factor of all the comic films of 2021.Moreover, The Snyder Cut is the superior film from in terms of artistry.

    Feige is more of a yes-man to whatever Disney wants and what Disney wants many times is to sell toys and theme parks with marvel films as their template, they care more about that than what it is the latest ground-breaking VFX or comic story presently going on in the world of film and entertainment that they can bring over to marvel movies that well help evolve the genre as a whole.
    Last edited by Castle; 01-15-2022 at 05:18 PM.

  12. #57
    CBR's Good Fairy Kieran_Frost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    8,539

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Yes, great assessment about Bond. Also Bond could change with the times and could push the limits of its spy genre. It is save to say that Daniel Craig is now a strong contender for best the Bond Run, also we do need to consider how much Craig's Bond is different to Pierson Bond even if I dont think 30 years has been a long time. there is only a 4 gap year between Casino Royale and Die Another Day and a lot about Bond changed. I will say Casino Royal and Skyfall can now be considered spy genre classics.
    Agreed, two awesome Bonds. I think Craig didn't have enough to topple Connery. Ultimately the two you listed were his only two EPIC Bond films. Loved Craig's work and character, EASILY a safe no#2, but the overall package swings to Connery due to the number of great films in that body of work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    MCU movies cant really evolve in those tick boxes you mentioned. , Disney owning Marvel has kind of painted them to a corner, they really change artistically , what they can use now is to just remix their formula that works big at the box office, bigger than we can ever imagine if you have seen No Way Home, which is a remix of the MCU formula. However Box Office is just not enough, you need the artistic credibility and I think franchise like Bond, and even Mission Impossible are far much ahead in having both.
    Agreed. The inability to age the characters puts a major problem on longevity. Unlike the comics, that can keep everyone looking the same and reboot originals every 30 years, the films have so little time. And the more then intertwine them, the less special each film feels as a stand alone (which certainly hurt Craig's last two films, to tie-in that comparison).

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Yeah, thanks for underling artistry I mention it here a lot too and I don't like that people interpreting it as me bashing, so it is glad to see someone else bring it up. Feige biggest flaw is that his movies have no artistry, they are all manufactured one way. We can truthfully talk about how inconsistent the sony and fox marvel movies were, however their best movies had that very important advantage of artistry that Feige producing hands does not want to watch.
    They are great popcorn flicks, and some films have elements of artistry in very specific moments (be it a performance, or costume, or cinematography). But ultimately there is too much 'big brother' control; boldness is put to the back-burner in favour of safe box-office success. Every. Time. Which is never the environment you nurture artistry.
    "We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Turing. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We so generous, we DeGeneres. We are Ziggy Stardust hooked to the silver screen. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato. We are Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."

  13. #58
    Astonishing Member Castle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran_Frost View Post
    Agreed, two awesome Bonds. I think Craig didn't have enough to topple Connery. Ultimately the two you listed were his only two EPIC Bond films. Loved Craig's work and character, EASILY a safe no#2, but the overall package swings to Connery due to the number of great films in that body of work.


    Agreed. The inability to age the characters puts a major problem on longevity. Unlike the comics, that can keep everyone looking the same and reboot originals every 30 years, the films have so little time. And the more then intertwine them, the less special each film feels as a stand alone (which certainly hurt Craig's last two films, to tie-in that comparison).


    They are great popcorn flicks, and some films have elements of artistry in very specific moments (be it a performance, or costume, or cinematography). But ultimately there is too much 'big brother' control; boldness is put to the back-burner in favour of safe box-office success. Every. Time. Which is never the environment you nurture artistry.

    More good take on arstrty, It is also why I do feel producers should be more in on a partnership with directors. perfect example is Spielberg/Lucas working on the Indiana Jones films. Spielberg directed and Lucas Produced. However I know both men are equals in every way.

    With Feige, he is the big boss of the directors and writers and that means the environment is really limited to nurture their art, which does put a good insight to why some of their directors have said they had creative freedom issues working at marvel studios.

    Though I am curious to see how Dr Strange 2 turns out because I will like to match up the film with the Sam Raimi Spiderman films and compare their artistic input.
    Last edited by Castle; 01-15-2022 at 04:17 PM.

  14. #59
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,056

    Default

    Not the greatest producer but the most successful financially.

  15. #60
    Extraordinary Member WebLurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    8,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Yes, great assessment about Bond. Also Bond could change with the times and could push the limits of its spy genre. It is save to say that Daniel Craig is now a strong contender for the best Bond Run, also we do need to consider how much Craig's Bond is different to Pierson Bond even if I dont think 30 years has been a long time. there is only a 4 gap year between Casino Royale and Die Another Day and a lot about Bond changed in those 4 years. I will say Casino Royal and Skyfall can now be considered spy genre classics and the film making of those films were excellent. Better than the Piers Bronson film era.
    Apples and oranges, not to mention that we're comparing a film franchise that's been around for years vs. one that's still in its first incarnation. A better comparison would be the MCU and the James Bond movies made between 1962 and 1975 (so Doctor No to The Man With the Golden Gun); that's comparing the movies within their same life cycle and all that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    MCU movies cant really evolve in those tick boxes you mentioned.
    I would argue that they have generally decent quality and their consistency is unquestionable. Longevity has yet to be proved, but likely, and they've been increasing artistry over time. Not sure what you mean by originality in this specific case. So, yeah, they have or are evolving into several of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Disney owning Marvel has kind of painted them to a corner, they really cant change artistically , what they can use now is to just remix their formula that works big at the box office, bigger than we can ever imagine (No Way Home), which is a remix of the MCU formula.
    There is no MCU "formula." Your arguments of why are so vague that any basic narrative would fit into it (case in point, by your criteria, the Snyderverse movies follow the "MCU fomula" slavishly). You want to talk about the artistry, stop bringing up this debunked hypothesis and actually dig into the craftsmanship of the film in question (narrative construction, filming choices, editing, etc.).

    Also, you have yet to prove that Disney is "limiting" Marvel Studios, esp. considering that Kevin Feige has gone on record that the output being in the PG-13 range was due to the studios' own creative choices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    However Box Office is not enough, you need the artistic credibility and I think franchise like Bond, and even Mission Impossible are far much ahead in having both.
    Don't recall anyone saying that box office success equaled greatness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Yeah, thanks for underling artistry I mention it here a lot too and I don't like that people interpreting it as me bashing, so I am glad to see someone else bring it up. Feige biggest flaw is that his movies have no artistry, they are all manufactured one way. We can truthfully talk about how inconsistent the sony and fox marvel movies were, however their best movies had that very important advantage of artistry that Feige producing hands does not want to touch.
    If you don't like people interpreting your invocation of artistry as MCU bashing, then stop using it that way. As noted before, as much as you love to claim that the MCU sucks because of artistry, you never actually talk about it; it's all just how the MCU isn't artistic, therefore its bad, with a side of they use humor and that makes them bad (which, incidentally, is not inherently bad; it's all in how it's applied). You hating the MCU for whatever reason (they don't appeal to you, you don't like that the series succeeded while stuff you like didn't) is fine; we all have our own tastes. However, if you want to talk about what kind of artistic quality the MCU has, actually talk about it. Case in point, rather than just saying that Guardians of the Galaxy is bad because its funny, explain why the use of humor doesn't work with the narrative as written.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Zack Snyder Snyderverse also had this advantage and for a while he was seen as the rival of Feige. love or hated it, Snyderverse were Zack Snyder envisioned movies, his own artistry that did start some interesting quality conversation about comic films as a whole.
    I think the Snyderverse is a textbook example of how a movie or movie series can have a singular artistic vision and still be bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    While I can agree and see the POV that No Way Home was the most fun comic film next year with the most re-watch factor of all the comic films of 2021.Moreover, The Snyder Cut is the superior film from an artistic film POV.
    Dunno; No Way Home had a clear theme that informed the narrative from beginning to end and leveraged everything, even the shameless "for the fans stuff" to that end. The Snyderverse movies have been defined by having muddled plots that don't really support the message that Snyder is trying to say. Heck, for that matter, his movies are really bloated with lots of excess fat, while No Way Home managed to keep itself lean and mean, with everything tying into the main plots clearly.

    All that said, I think that James Gunn's Suicide Squad is arguably the best 2021 superhero movie from an artistic perspective. The film is purely his vision, with his style imprinted on the whole package, he got some really good performances from his cast, and there was a multilayered theme (both political and a character-driven one) that was so integrated into the narrative that we knew what it was long before the the thesis statement explaining it came up. I'd also that Gunn has a knack for writing deeper, more layered characters than Snyder does, not to mention writing in general (heck, look at some of his interviews and the BluRay features; Gunn has commented a lot on the writing process and how they worked so that the scenes and set pieces advanced the story).

    One could argue that Synder tries to go for more broader narrative themes (I mean, BvS wanted to be about humankind's relationship with God or the idea of God or whatever form of higher power you ascribe to), while Gunn's superhero movies have been largely character-driven (Guardians was all about family, while Suicide Squad got a lot of mileage about the people society looked down on and whether they could change, had value, etc.). Either is a legitimate subject matter, but I think Gunn executes his better; while they both are skilled in visuals, he edges out Snyder in the writing department.

    Course, it's all relative; heck, I thought the best movie I saw in 2021 was The Mitchels vs The Machines (which had artistic quality to spare).

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    Feige is more of a yes-man to whatever Disney wants and what Disney wants many times is to sell toys and theme parks with marvel films as their template, they care more about that than what it is the latest ground-breaking VFX or comic story presently going on in the world of film and entertainment they can bring over to marvel movies that well help evolve the genre as a whole.
    And yet Feige was willing to fight for the series when Issac Perlmutter was in charge and has shown a great deal of interest in evolving the MCU into the future with new characters, new kinds of stories, and experimenting with different formats. One can argue over the final quality of the MCU movies, but everything points to him as being very invested in his job and wanting to make a worthwhile product.
    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)

Posting Permissions

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