|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
OK movie for me. Not fantastic, not terrible. I didn't feel wowed like black panther/guardians or bored like iron3/ant2/thor2. To me it's just a movie that adds more depth to the mcu.
+ Show Spoiler +So captain marvel's powers comes from the tesseract or more accurately from something extracted from the tesseract. Given that she is human based (with Kree techniques), at best her powers are Vision level. Thanos has 6 stones. That means captain marvel is far from his power level.
I hope end game treats it that way and not make her too OP. Her beams weren't even deadly when she fought her former teammates. She's probably stronger though than all the avengers, even Thor. Would be interesting to see how she gets balanced.
|
Just saw Captain Marvel.
Was pretty meh to be honest.
|
On March 10 2019 15:01 DucK- wrote:OK movie for me. Not fantastic, not terrible. I didn't feel wowed like black panther/guardians or bored like iron3/ant2/thor2. To me it's just a movie that adds more depth to the mcu. + Show Spoiler +So captain marvel's powers comes from the tesseract or more accurately from something extracted from the tesseract. Given that she is human based (with Kree techniques), at best her powers are Vision level. Thanos has 6 stones. That means captain marvel is far from his power level.
I hope end game treats it that way and not make her too OP. Her beams weren't even deadly when she fought her former teammates. She's probably stronger though than all the avengers, even Thor. Would be interesting to see how she gets balanced.
+ Show Spoiler +
Technically her power level should be on par with Vision or Scarlet Witch then (both of their powers are derived from infinity stones).
|
Finland931 Posts
$455M worldwide gross for Captain Marvel, safe to say it's a certified hit.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
Don't think you can call it hit based of those numbers because its like Star Wars, it is going to hit big numbers regardless if it is a good film because that is how big Marvell is right now. If it is a "hit" then it will do huge numbers not just "good" ones.
|
A big indicator that the Star Wars franchise tanked is in the toy sales. Toy sales died. $14 USD Rose Tico action figures are $1 CDN at the local clearance outlet shit-hole mall near me.
Hating Star Wars has become an industry. There are at least a half dozen youtube channels with 100s of thousands of subscribers who employ multiple production staff members and pump out videos crapping all over Disney Star Wars.
A big reason Captain Marvel got so much hate is these "Star Wars Hater" channels have a lull in content. The next Star Wars movie isn't out for another 8+ months and there is hardly any new stuff coming out from Disney for them to crap on. So they moved over to Captain Marvel. All the "Star War Hate" channels also have the hate train going for Captain Marvel.
I guess the "Angry Joe" youtube channel is the "template" for these guys.
These youtube channels provide the average person with their "2 minutes hate" that Goerge Orwell foreshadowed in 1984. Its pretty spooky how well Orwell nailed that one.
|
On March 11 2019 07:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I guess the "Angry Joe" youtube channel is the "template" for these guys.
AngryJoe actually liked CM and gave it a solid 7/10.
|
United States15275 Posts
On March 11 2019 06:16 hexhaven wrote:
$455M worldwide gross for Captain Marvel, safe to say it's a certified hit.
It had the benefit of no competition for two weeks, a huge advertising campaign, and theaters reserved auditoriums exclusively for it. Marvel Studios would have been disappointed with a smaller opening weekend.
Nevertheless, the majority of Marvel's sales comes from merchandising. Like Jimmy mentioned, Star Wars gutted its revenue stream by driving away the hardcore fans that bought $120 Lego sets and $50 action figures. They were fanatically loyal whales until spokesmen for the studio shitted on them; now they either loathe or have lost interest in the IP and there's no sustainable fanbase to replace them. Marvel may have already repeated that mistake by letting its actors run their mouths too much during press conferences. We need to see if Captain Marvel's success translates to being popular among kids and die-hard fans; it already has stiff competition from Wonder Woman and Black Widow.
On March 10 2019 07:22 IgnE wrote:
I haven't seen either and don't plan to see either, but I am curious about the supposed contrast if could elaborate.
Long story short Suicide Squad didn't know what type of movie it wanted to be. It refused to adapt the original source material by John Ostrander - a thriller deliberately de-emphasizing superpowers in favor of 80's geopolitics and characterization - in favor of a "kooky group of misfits go on an adventure" plot a la GotG. On the surface this is fine. There's plenty of reference material they could draw upon within the DC and outside of it: Gail Simone's Secret Six post-2000s Thunderbolts, Warren Ellis' Moon Knight, Uncanny X-Force, etc. Yet the movie for the most part kept core characters without bothering to understand why they existed on the original roster in the first place; most egregiously, they screwed up Deadshot to make him another milquetoast mook with a sentimental reason for the audience to like him. Not to mention it aspired to convey relationship drama, redemption arcs, blah blah blah, all pursued in half-assed fashion. Suicide Squad ended up a tonal mess full of basement-tier writing.
Captain Marvel has a very clear vision of how Carol relates to all the other characters and factions within the movie. It deserves credit for that alone; arguably it is a late counterpart to Iron Man. Its primary mistake is relying on the skeleton of the hero's journey for a character with no discernible flaws. Captain Marvel's motif is society, human and Kree alike, are suppressing her true potential; the solution is restoring faith in herself. Perhaps that would work for another movie, but the hero journey assumes its protagonist must grow into his/her rightful place. This dissonance saturates the movie in every respect: airless fights, bizarre tone shifts, characters making nonsensical choices for the sake of messaging.
|
On March 11 2019 09:18 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2019 07:00 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
I guess the "Angry Joe" youtube channel is the "template" for these guys.
AngryJoe actually liked CM and gave it a solid 7/10.
He gave Destiny 2 a 6/10 and talked about it like it was the end of western civilization. Yelling and raging and gesticulating wildly through much of the review.
I'm referring to his template/style of yelling, screaming, jumping up and down and raging. Hence the '2 minutes hate' of Orwell's 1984. Not necessarily any individual rating he gives.
This is not a criticism of "Angry Joe". If this play-acting works for him; if he is being basically honest in his reviews and it allows him to keep his business going ... all the more power to him.
|
Superman 3
When I read other people's extremely negative reviews I thought they might be "haters" with grandiose unrealistic expectations. I was wrong. This movie is horrible. Superman 3 is a train wreck. This movie is so bad, and so tone deaf its almost comical.
Came out in 1983. I thought special effects were supposed to get better as time goes by. This movie's effects were a lot worse than Superman:The Movie(1978) and Superman 2 (1981). In previous movies the big bad villain was someone capable of awe-inspiring, world-dominating power. Lex Luthor, General Zod, etc. In this movie 1 of the major villains is stand up comedian Richard Pryor. wtf? The long romance between Superman and Lois Lane is gone. Lois Lane makes a cameo appearance and that's it. She showed signs of age and Margot Kidder's nasty coke habit shows a bit. LOL. A few years after this movie Margot Kidder was homeless on the streets of Vancouver. Anyhow, the new "romance" was with Lana Lang.. and it wasn't very good. Superman's big problem is this movie?+ Show Spoiler + he becomes a drunk. Hey, I guess that makes him more "relatable" to the common man, eh?
I love the clothes in this movie. I love the way people view technology in 1983. It is hilarious. So many sentences start with these two words: "The Computer". "The Computer" is said with a reverence that I can't describe in words. "The Computer" .. blah blah blah. "the Computer" ... this. "The Computer" .. that. LOL.
Did the average citizen in 1983 realize that a stand up arcade machine was a computer hard wired for 1 specific purpose?
There was no word processors in the newspaper offices of the first 3 Superman movies. It was all typewriters and electric typewriters. Contrast this with the 1981 "Absence of Malice" in which the Miami Herald Newspaper had computers and word processing.
2/10
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/5a5D5ww.jpg)
Here is Superman's Epic Struggle + Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
Superman 1 and 2 are considered timeless classics. Superman 3 killed the franchise. I can understand why.
|
Lego: The Movie 2
I'd like to take my Lego without the politics... Unfortunately, this movie has revealed to me that men are useless, obsessed and destructive, which leads to all the problems in the world, leaving the only reasonable people around (women) to fix it as they do all the work anyway. Everything is not awesome.
Kursk
Not your typical Luc Besson movie. I think it was done pretty well, some scenes dragged a bit too long which made pacing a tad awkward. Switching between the events at sea and sailor's families was a nice touch but I think it ruined the tension at points and pulled you out of it. This movie definitely suffers from trying to do too many things at once. Still, it's an interesting movie and I can recommend it.
|
Until 1983, Christopher Reeve's "Kal-El" was considered a timeless, all-time-great performance. By 1980, 81, 82 the only actor that could play Superman was Reeve. He went from doubts and skepticism in 1977 to the obvious choice as Kal-El/Clark-Kent. Reeve took the dual roles of Clark-Kent//Kal-El to unseen heights..never before seen nuances.. new complexities. The guy is an incredible actor. And all that was wasted in 1983 with Superman3.
I think Disney might be destroying the Luke Skywalker hero the way the Salkinds destroyed Chris Reeve's Kal-El in 1983. The kinds of complaints I'm reading and hearing from Reeve fanboys ( who are probably 45+ at this point ) about Superman3 sound similar to the complaints by Star Wars fan boys about how Disney is treating the Luke Skywalker hero.
|
United States42744 Posts
Manitou, is it possible you’ve let yourself get overexposed to the kind of angry privilege victim propaganda that is so prevalent in many online circles? A lot of the opinions you seem to be exposed to and subsequently echo lean heavily into that narrative.
A lot of content providers have emulated the Fox model of 24/7 outrage and fear. Fear that you personally are under attack by an unknown other culture that hates you for what you are, and outrage as a response to it. It’s an extremely successful business model that works, in part, by radicalizing the consumer against content not provided by the original content provider.
I’ve seen how easy it is to fall into that hole, watch one wrong youtube video and suddenly your entire feed is nothing but Jordan Peterson and videos explaining how SJWs ruined Star Wars.
It’s something to be aware of. Plenty of smart people fall into it because they’re applying their intelligence to the material they’re exposed to rather than the context. And it’s a hard thing to get out of because we don’t pay for content with anything but our eyeballs and emotional involvement which gives content providers an economic incentive to perpetually reinforce the narrative and up the stakes.
|
On March 12 2019 01:48 KwarK wrote:
I’ve seen how easy it is to fall into that hole, watch one wrong youtube video and suddenly your entire feed is nothing but Jordan Peterson and videos explaining how SJWs ruined Star Wars.
Disney owns the Star Wars IP. SJWs do not own it. The question is: has Disney harmed Star Wars?
I prefer to look at fictional universes from way back in history so that all those with "skin in the game" are gone and don't care. Time provides great perspective. The Salkinds definitely killed the Reeve/Donner/Brando Superman franchise with Superman3 in 1983. The objective measure is revenue and profit. Subjectively, the brutally negative reactions of the fans are an indicator of how bad the Salkinds fucked it into the ground. Initially, I did not believe all the intense salty comments. I thought the "angry fan boys" were exaggerating. Then i watched Superman 3. It is a very bad movie.
So it is possible to wreck a fantasy, fictional movie series with a solid quality history. The Salkinds did it in the 80s. It is possible that when fanboys spew brutally venomous nasty comments about a movie like Superman3 that it is indeed a really bad movie that wrecks its main hero.
Has the Star Wars franchise been harmed by Disney? At least, somewhat. We'll see how bad the damage is with Episode 9. The objective measure is the revenue and profit in movies, toys and video games. Layoffs at Hasbro. Star Wars toys in bargain bins where they've always been premium priced. In the video game front they ended LucasArts and decided to give it all to EA. Very bad move. Bob Iger and Kathleen Kennedy have made some big mistakes. Bob Iger acknowledged some error on his part with the movies in his September 2018 statement.
If Disney continues to make bad decisions as the Salkinds did in the 80s Star Wars movies are in big trouble. The toys and video games are already damaged by Disney's bad moves.
|
The more time goes on the more I blame the damage of star wars on bad writing decisions, some of which are mandated by corporate. Battlefront 2 and TLJ are perfect examples of this. There is nothing worse then activism that is either killed by corporate or was a lie from the beginning. "strong female" characters that are really just male characters that their editors told them they had to change because they didn't have any females in their script. BF2 doesn't have the courage of having a female character be evil in the slightest possible light and forces them to go to the rebellion because its not allowed to actually deliver on any activism. TLJ is a mess (or one of its many reasons why its a mess) because phasma isn't allowed to be a strong female evil character, Rose is a waste of time because shes not suppose to be on the casino subplot but the editor realized that there weren't any female characters in the casino subplot, and ray isn't allowed to even consider accepting kylos offer and is forced to rejoin the rebellion because the lesson of the story is that star wars is only ever empire vs rebels and nothing else can happen.
Also JJ abrums pulled a lost and proposed way too much in the first installment that he had neither the power nor the ideal developed enough to deliver on.
TLDR: SJWS could have saved star wars
|
United States42744 Posts
The above post was prompted by Manitou’s posts on LEGO and Captain Marvel, rather than SW specifically, although SW did get a lot of attention from the same crowd.
But on the SW subject, I quite liked Luke being a colossal disappointment to the fans. We have a farm kid who is swept up into these grand affairs and told he’s going to save the world. He blows up a Death Star or two, gets an apprentice, and tells himself he won’t make his father’s mistakes. And then he does because life sucks sometimes, and it basically breaks him. He can’t be “Luke the savior” but he doesn’t know what the hell else to be because he was a kid when he found himself in the middle of a war.
I found it an interesting take at least. Way better than having the new generation overshadowed by Luke and having all the stakes be rendered meaningless because Luke could solve it all at any time. The new movies were always going to have to deal with “why can’t Luke just fix everything” and I think Luke coming to grips with the idea of force sensitive heroes being the ones fucking everything up is a good angle.
That’s why they started doing this “everyman” hero stuff in the casino subplot I think. They’ve got a stormtrooper with a conscience and a mechanic going round doing shit in a background focused on how the grand affairs are fucking shit up for the little people.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
Renamed the thread as its basically just discussing movies and everything about them at this point. Which i like to read and don't want to separate the thread soo :D
Captain Marvel up to 59% audience score on RT as well now thats probably how i expected it to be. Lots of reviews seem to be; Good movie but generic origin story background for her but still a decent movie.
|
On March 12 2019 01:48 KwarK wrote:
Manitou, is it possible you’ve let yourself get overexposed to the kind of angry privilege victim propaganda that is so prevalent in many online circles? A lot of the opinions you seem to be exposed to and subsequently echo lean heavily into that narrative.
I was taking part in debates against feminists at the university before Internet was cool and I had to do quite a bit of reading on the subject so I guess I got overexposed by my own design (to be honest, I was super far left anarchist back then, now I guess I'm against everything - right, left and center) 
As far as Lego movie goes, I went into it completely blind (haven't even seen the trailer). Personally, I don't mind some activism in the movies as long as it's done right. In case of LtM2 it was so blatant and direct that I might've actually winced involuntarily during the couple scenes when this was made way too obvious.
|
On March 12 2019 06:26 Pandemona wrote:
Renamed the thread as its basically just discussing movies and everything about them at this point. Which i like to read and don't want to separate the thread soo :D
Captain Marvel up to 59% audience score on RT as well now thats probably how i expected it to be. Lots of reviews seem to be; Good movie but generic origin story background for her but still a decent movie.
It seems like exactly the movie I expected it to be, faux outrage and all. My buddies said it was a lot of fun and something my wife and I will enjoy. I don't need every Marvel movie to light the world on fire. Sometimes Ant Man 2 is just fine.
On March 12 2019 05:36 KwarK wrote:
The above post was prompted by Manitou’s posts on LEGO and Captain Marvel, rather than SW specifically, although SW did get a lot of attention from the same crowd.
But on the SW subject, I quite liked Luke being a colossal disappointment to the fans. We have a farm kid who is swept up into these grand affairs and told he’s going to save the world. He blows up a Death Star or two, gets an apprentice, and tells himself he won’t make his father’s mistakes. And then he does because life sucks sometimes, and it basically breaks him. He can’t be “Luke the savior” but he doesn’t know what the hell else to be because he was a kid when he found himself in the middle of a war.
I found it an interesting take at least. Way better than having the new generation overshadowed by Luke and having all the stakes be rendered meaningless because Luke could solve it all at any time. The new movies were always going to have to deal with “why can’t Luke just fix everything” and I think Luke coming to grips with the idea of force sensitive heroes being the ones fucking everything up is a good angle.
That’s why they started doing this “everyman” hero stuff in the casino subplot I think. They’ve got a stormtrooper with a conscience and a mechanic going round doing shit in a background focused on how the grand affairs are fucking shit up for the little people.
I agree with this take. I was more excited to see a SW movie that went places I didn't expect than. Especially with Luke still being the same person as before, head in the clouds, not seeing what was right in front of him. I also love the idea of the previous heroes being unable to bring lasting peace in a world with stark light and dark dynamics. Because of course they couldn't. Plus the movie has such attention to the inspirations that drove Lucas to make the films, like the slow Kurosawa ass duel at the end and a Jedi that used the power of the force to trick his opponents, rather than overpower them.
Plus in the next movie we get ghost Luke, which is kinda all I've ever wanted in the films.
|
United States15275 Posts
On March 12 2019 05:36 KwarK wrote:
But on the SW subject, I quite liked Luke being a colossal disappointment to the fans. We have a farm kid who is swept up into these grand affairs and told he’s going to save the world. He blows up a Death Star or two, gets an apprentice, and tells himself he won’t make his father’s mistakes. And then he does because life sucks sometimes, and it basically breaks him. He can’t be “Luke the savior” but he doesn’t know what the hell else to be because he was a kid when he found himself in the middle of a war.
Errr...none of this happened the way you claimed it did. I'm no Star Wars fanatic (my brother roped me into the scene as an adolescent) but it's annoying how people oversimplify the original trilogy to debase its main plot and what they judge to be immature outrage.
On March 12 2019 05:36 KwarK wrote:
That’s why they started doing this “everyman” hero stuff in the casino subplot I think. They’ve got a stormtrooper with a conscience and a mechanic going round doing shit in a background focused on how the grand affairs are fucking shit up for the little people.
That might've worked if the writers understood basic economics, how casinos work, and didn't create a pointless Groucho and Marx routine for its intrepid interlopers. Like many failures in the movie, The Last Jedi tries to skirt through the incongruities by relying on sheer symbolism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/64EVt1B.jpg)
