- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:05 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
tread lightly bro, Marvel fans take offense to any critique of these films.
Not this is a fanboy war...
You've got it backwards. Marvel fans are generally realistic. No one thinks The Avengers is anything more than a high quality take on a popcorn superhero film that emulates the comics to a T. On the other hand, there's a high chance that people who "prefer DC" are the most touchy and delusional around. That's why every thread is a shiteshow. Anything that critiques TDKR or MoS is automatically wrong, a Marvel fanboy, etc. It gets ridiculous and no one reads past their own suspicions.
That's why there's so much defense over TDKR, which was kind of an awful conclusion to the trilogy, and a pretty bad film.
Marvel fans usually readily admit that IM 2 and 3 were subpar and many don't like Cap 1. And not that it matters, but Hulk 1 routinely gets crapped on.
Most think the only AWESOME films were Avengers, WS, Guardians and maybe IM.
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:06 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
And then they brought him back to life in true comic book fashion.
So the end of TDKR was a dream or something?
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:09 pm to Freauxzen
DOFP is better than both of them, IMO.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:11 pm to Freauxzen
I'm getting a feeling that I'll like Ultron
It was really the second act that killed the first one for me, supposedly there's none of that in this one
I'm pumped for ex machina
It was really the second act that killed the first one for me, supposedly there's none of that in this one
I'm pumped for ex machina
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:12 pm to abellsujr
quote:
DOFP is better than both of them, IMO.
It's like the middle ground of the two, IMO. It has the comic book presentation of Avengers with the more realistic tone of Nolan's Bat movies.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:13 pm to Methuselah
quote:
People like what they like
Exactly. For example I love Hemingway and Dostoevsky stuff but can't stand D.H. Lawrence, am bored by Dos Passos and only find James Joyce pretty good. Whey this is I have no idea but it's just personal taste and preferences I guess
yeah, people like what they like
the idea of someone loving Dosteovsky and being meh about James Joyce just makes me
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:16 pm to Freauxzen
That's about right. I think Singer nails the balance and what the X-Men politics are all about. He gets it.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:21 pm to DelU249
quote:
I'm getting a feeling that I'll like Ultron
It was really the second act that killed the first one for me, supposedly there's none of that in this one
But you said you might hate it?
In terms of this thread...
I also think the resounding positivity for Avengers is also due to a long list of either dark and brooding Batmans (both Nolan and Burton), the string of 90s and 2000s nu metal movies in Blade, Daredevil, Catwoman, etc, (even Hulk 1), and a general 90's comic-book influence on comic book films (X1 is ultra serious outside of the "dick" comment).
People like fun stuff. The MU has proven to be a place that:
1) Loves the fact that it comes from comic books
2) Spends time referencing that constantly, and in good ways
3) Tells simple stories with simple heroic motivations
4) And does it triumphantly, not taking itself too seriously
It's super easy to get drawn into that kind of atmosphere when everything else from the genre had come from the "hardcore" side of things, and then with Snyder, culminating in almost a rejection of its source material (the tone and presentation, not the story).
It's the tone. The fun. The lack of being dark and brooding, to be dark and brooding (something that Nolan was quite good at, and Snyder is not).
Superheroes are classically colorful, fun, campy. Burton caught campy part, but kept it dark...Schumacher is Burton's Snyder. The MU has done something a little different, and been very successful at it. They put 1960s comics with modern storylines on the screen. That makes it easy to "enjoy."
Does that make people a little too excited? Probably. But is that a bad thing?
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 8:29 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:25 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Does that make people a little too excited? Probably. But is that a bad thing?
mostly just leads to annoyance from people who are not excited.
spending too much time debating movies does sometimes put a damper on the ability to just watch it and enjoy at whatever level you choose.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:27 pm to molsusports
quote:
mostly just leads to annoyance from people who are not excited.
Then it's really the fault of people who don't know how to not listen. I was never into Harry Potter when it was coming out. Some of my friends were crazy about the stuff. They start talking, I tune out or go do something else. Threads on here? Don't participate initially. No need to rain on their parade.
But yeah, that's what trolls are for.
No one is forcing anyone to engage in discussions.
quote:
spending too much time debating movies does sometimes put a damper on the ability to just watch it and enjoy at whatever level you choose.
I'd agree.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:30 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
No need to rain on their parade.
that's one of the modern purposes of the internet. have you no reverence for twitter?
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:30 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Tells simple stories with simple heroic motivations
read: surface level, shallow, boring.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:33 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
read: surface level, shallow, boring.
Simple story structure has nothing to do with depth, intensity, meaning, theme or any other quality of art.
Ulysses is about a day in the life of a Irishman. Yeah it's that simple.
Complexity for complexity's sake is not necessarily a good thing. Simple things can be deep, complex, meaningful. It's called basic mythic structure and it's existed since storytelling began.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:34 pm to Freauxzen
quote:Snyder failed to some to do Superman justice. His Batman so far looks miles better than Nolan's. The world in BvS is set up for Batman. Is that a good thing? If you like Batman more, yes. If you like Superman more, no. I just think it's unfair to judge his take on Batman yet, especially when everything looks great so far.
It's the tone. The fun. The lack of being dark and brooding, to be dark and brooding (something that Nolan was quite good at, and Snyder is not).
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:38 pm to abellsujr
quote:
Snyder failed to some to do Superman justice. His Batman so far looks miles better than Nolan's. The world in BvS is set up for Batman.Is that a good thing? If you like Batman more, yes. If you like Superman more, no. I just think it's unfair to judge his take on Batman yet, especially when everything looks great so far.
I'm not judging Snyder's Bat-take. I'm looking at the TDK Trilogy vs. MoS where Snyder failed pretty hard (again, he didn't necessarily fail with the storyline or even with Superman, that's debatable at least)... he failed with the overall presentation and tone. Just look at the Color thread. That was a choice to bring "depth" through a darker color. To artistically emphasize certain things. It was wrong for a lot of people. It'd be a great experiment, if we could ever do it, to test if the average feeling were more positive for first time watchers with a more colorful film. Those little things can have a big impact.
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:41 pm to Freauxzen
I agree about the color (or lack there of) 100% and I agree that it impacted peoples view of the film. It was a bad decision for a stand alone Superman movie.
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 8:50 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:42 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Simple story structure has nothing to do with depth, intensity, meaning, theme or any other quality of art.
It does when the dialogue is as dumbed down and the story as formulaic as the Marvel movies tend to be. And there's a place for that, don't get me wrong. Just don't tell me that it's just as good or better of a film than TDKR because it isn't (and I'll be the first to admit that movies shortcomings as well).
quote:
Ulysses is about a day in the life of a Irishman. Yeah it's that simple.
MU ain't Ulysses bro
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:52 pm to Draconian Sanctions
These films really aren't comparable.
The Dark Knight Rises is the culmination of a saga (with one captain at that)
Avengers: Age of Ultron is a smaller part of a bigger saga that could get bigger as Marvel adds more films, or takes films out.
Personally I fell as though armed with the knowledge that we have 11 more unreleased films contributing to this story, it makes me care less about Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Granted we knew Avengers would lead to sequels for most properties involved, but they didn't announce 11 films several weeks after the box office numbers.
The Dark Knight Rises is the culmination of a saga (with one captain at that)
Avengers: Age of Ultron is a smaller part of a bigger saga that could get bigger as Marvel adds more films, or takes films out.
Personally I fell as though armed with the knowledge that we have 11 more unreleased films contributing to this story, it makes me care less about Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Granted we knew Avengers would lead to sequels for most properties involved, but they didn't announce 11 films several weeks after the box office numbers.
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 4/30/15 at 8:55 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
It does when the dialogue is as dumbed down and the story as formulaic as the Marvel movies tend to be.
To each his own. Again, MU movies aren't hiding the fact that they are comic books at all.
quote:
Just don't tell me that it's just as good or better of a film than TDKR because it isn't (and I'll be the first to admit that movies shortcomings as well).
It all depends on your point of reference. As an event? Few movies are better for some people. As a true to life comic book movie? Maybe Superman: The Movie is better, that's about it. As a Film, capital F, yeah it's probably mediocre. Again, it all depends on perspective. If you really want to try and view Avengers as an Oscar contender, sure it's going to let you down.
And as its relation to TDKR, well again, it depends on where you come from. As a Film, TDKR is far worse than Avengers. It's a mess of a Film. As a conclusion to a trilogy? Also kind of bad. As a comic book film, Eh not bad. Is it better than most theater fare? Sure.
While I'd readily admit TDK and probably even BB are better overall than Avengers (although as comic book films, no), TDKR was just bad. There's just no other way to look at it. The final "street fight" alone makes it nearly laughable. I know proponents want to look past that, and argue that it's "the background," but that's REALLY hard to do while calling it a good film.
If a scene like that were in any MCU film, people would slam it. Big time.
quote:
MU ain't Ulysses bro
Of course it isn't. The point is, simplicity can be powerful. If you would agree that your outlook on Marvel films is correct, the fact that these "simple" films can incite huge passion outside of it's major fanbase is pretty telling.
This post was edited on 4/30/15 at 8:57 pm
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News