/dev/null Posted April 16, 2017 Posted April 16, 2017 dude jar jar binks is the ****. Maybe the big reveal in the next one will be Snokes is really Jar Jar
EersN'Bills Posted April 16, 2017 Posted April 16, 2017 The biggest problem with the prequels I had was that Darth Maul went out like a b****. It's made even more funny in the third episode when Obi-Wan advises Anakin to not jump because he (Obi-Wan) has "the high ground", and I'm like "that didn't matter for you in the first episode." But Maul would have been a great villain to have for all the prequels.
DC Tom Posted April 16, 2017 Posted April 16, 2017 Maybe the big reveal in the next one will be Snokes is really Jar Jar Meesa okey-dokey Sith!
dickleyjones Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 There are nuances in the prequels that I do like, but I don't want to nitpick about what was good and not good in them. I thought the most interesting character was Qui-Gon Jinn, and it's too bad that we didn't get to see him used more in this setting. I'm not saying Lucas does not deserve some criticism for what he brought to the screen. My issue is with all the people complaining that Lucas ruined their childhood. That is ridiculous. he did not ruin my childhood with bad movies. he made my childhood great! and then he made some bad movies.
Mark Vader Posted April 17, 2017 Posted April 17, 2017 The overwhelming majority of Marvel movies have been soulless, shameless assembly line cash grabs. Star Wars is getting the same treatment. Disney sucks. Can't please everybody.
FireChan Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) Can't please everybody. Well they could try to make movies with a soul, again. But that requires creative talent. Much easier to write "Captain America gets hit by X, cut to Iron Man saying something funny on a bland CGI backdrop" over and over and over and over. It sells. Edited April 18, 2017 by FireChan
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 Well they could try to make movies with a soul, again. But that requires creative talent. Much easier to write "Captain America gets hit by X, cut to Iron Man saying something funny on a bland CGI backdrop" over and over and over and over. It sells. When it costs $40M or more to sign a name actor or not get your movie made, you can't afford to make movies with a soul.
eball Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 too many old people in here complaining. Sums up TSW in general.
FireChan Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) When it costs $40M or more to sign a name actor or not get your movie made, you can't afford to make movies with a soul. The economics of movie making does not make movies "good." It's an excuse. And I'm not sure how valid it is. Edited April 18, 2017 by FireChan
DC Tom Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 The economics of movie making does not make movies "good." It's an excuse. And I'm not sure how valid it is. It most certainly does. When you have to recoup that sort of cost, you have to focus less on "good" and more on "making spectacles that put asses in seats," which drastically changes the economics of movie-making. It effectively squeezes out almost any chance of making a "mid-range budget" movie, because the economics become too risky (Deadpool, for example, never gets made if Ryan Reynolds gets A-list money, because it would have been too much of an economic risk.) Easier to shell out a quarter-billion on empty spectacle that you're sure will recoup its budget (e.g. Batman vs. Superman) than take a risk on a $50M movie. So you end up with a handful of bloated tent-pole movies, and a couple handfuls of low-budget or indie movies, but nothing in the mid-range where quality used to be found.
Mark Vader Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 Well they could try to make movies with a soul, again. But that requires creative talent. Much easier to write "Captain America gets hit by X, cut to Iron Man saying something funny on a bland CGI backdrop" over and over and over and over. It sells. Serious question. What exactly do you want these Marvel Movies to deliver for you to consider them good, or creative?
FireChan Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 It most certainly does. When you have to recoup that sort of cost, you have to focus less on "good" and more on "making spectacles that put asses in seats," which drastically changes the economics of movie-making. It effectively squeezes out almost any chance of making a "mid-range budget" movie, because the economics become too risky (Deadpool, for example, never gets made if Ryan Reynolds gets A-list money, because it would have been too much of an economic risk.) Easier to shell out a quarter-billion on empty spectacle that you're sure will recoup its budget (e.g. Batman vs. Superman) than take a risk on a $50M movie. So you end up with a handful of bloated tent-pole movies, and a couple handfuls of low-budget or indie movies, but nothing in the mid-range where quality used to be found. Yep. And it sucks. Serious question. What exactly do you want these Marvel Movies to deliver for you to consider them good, or creative? Take any kind of a chance? Show any kind of directorial flair? Less dependence on CGI? Characters that aren't 2D cardboard cut outs? Any kind of original theme? If they can't do any of those things, they are trash movies that should not exist. Here's an example. Thor 2 should not exist. It was a campy, soulless piece of trash. It was made because it grossed $640M, but it was an actual disgrace. The movie industry is fundamentally broken because movies like Thor 2 make money. And Disney is the chief culprit. Along with the mindless consumers.
Beef Jerky Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) Serious question. What exactly do you want these Marvel Movies to deliver for you to consider them good, or creative? He doesn't know what he wants. One of those people you never want to ask about how a movie was but he will tell you anyway. He hates these movies yet always talking about them. Edited April 19, 2017 by Beef Jerky
FireChan Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 He doesn't know what he wants. One of those people you never want to ask about how a movie was but he will tell you anyway. He hates these movies yet always talking about them. That's a tough post to have immediately after I dunked on it. :lol:
Beef Jerky Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 That's a tough post to have immediately after I dunked on it. :lol: I read that post and that is why I responded. You really don't know what you want. You never answered... Just said stupid ****.
FireChan Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 I read that post and that is why I responded. You really don't know what you want. You never answered... Just said stupid ****. Yep. And it sucks. Take any kind of a chance? Show any kind of directorial flair? Less dependence on CGI? Characters that aren't 2D cardboard cut outs? Any kind of original theme? If they can't do any of those things, they are trash movies that should not exist. Here's an example. Thor 2 should not exist. It was a campy, soulless piece of trash. It was made because it grossed $640M, but it was an actual disgrace. The movie industry is fundamentally broken because movies like Thor 2 make money. And Disney is the chief culprit. Along with the mindless consumers. Ouch.
Beef Jerky Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 Ouch. Yea that answers nothing... Chance at what? Directional flair? Explain yourself... These stories follow comics FFS. CGI is the future, you don't like it then don't watch it. 2D cardboard cut out? They are real actors... Any kind of original theme... Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Take any kind of chance" See a bunch of ****, just like when you talk football hahahaha
FireChan Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) Yea that answers nothing... Chance at what? Directional flair? Explain yourself... These stories follow comics FFS. CGI is the future, you don't like it then don't watch it. 2D cardboard cut out? They are real actors... Any kind of original theme... Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "Take any kind of chance" See a bunch of ****, just like when you talk football hahahaha A chance, like not telling a bland "bad guy needs X to threaten the world," story or "CGI monsters are the villains so we can still appeal to little kids." Directorial flair refers to the shots and cinematography. The original Iron Man directed by John Favreau had many beautiful shots and juxtapositions that you can't even find in some of the latest Marvel films. Example . This is a cool shot. It's aesthetically pleasing. Show me something from Avengers 2 or Thor 2 that comes close. I don't think you can. "Don't watch?" I thought we were talking about my criticisms of the films. CGI can be done tastefully, or it can be your whole movie and look like crap. The Star Wars prequels were almost entirely CGI and they sucked. As the Marvel films have progressed, the characters have become caricatures. Any development we saw previously is thrown aside for funny quips and nothing of any substance. They have no motivations, they aren't real people, they are action figures. Which is boring. An original theme would be taking a chance. Instead we get schlocky "Ultron wants to kill the Avengers because his computer logic believes that will protect humanity." That theme has been done 10000000000 times before. It's boring. Now, not all Marvel movies suck. Just most of them. Edited April 19, 2017 by FireChan
Beef Jerky Posted April 19, 2017 Posted April 19, 2017 You know that is what the comics were always about... Villians X tries to destroy the world and the heroes go to save... You want something different then don't watch comic movies.
Recommended Posts