Dragonseeker

3 minutes ago, 5timechamp said:

I found the score mostly forgettable... in the last film the score really complemented the scenes...this movie had no patience for any significant build up..

 

I must admit.. I LOVED the remixed Godzilla and Mothra themes...then got upset cause there was no Rodan remix

I loved Desplat's Godzilla score as well. The style was very different. Desplat really nailed the suspense and the horror/terror. McCreary's score focused on the mythical grandeur of the monsters. More blunt force, but I really like it as well.  

Just watched it and I have to say, I am disappointed.

Will Smith sounds bored as hell. I think Ejiofor doesn't sound menacing enough, but I think I could buy into his voice as I get used to it. 

I agree that Lion King could really benefit from having a longer runtime. But Aladdin...I am not sure. I feel like everything extra will be songs and fluff. 

5 hours ago, Jason said:

Man, this movie must be hot garbage if they're leaning in so heavily on the nostalgia angle.

They shown like 27 minutes of the film already so I still have some faith in it. At the very least, I think this movie will be technically great. You have Lee Smith, Mauro Fiore, and Hans Zimmer behind the scenes.  

11 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

They’ve never been consistent about that, even within the first Ant-Man. Hank carries a tank on a keychain, Scott crawls on people without them falling over, etc. There’s obviously more to it then just mass retention. 

 

Every hero in the MCU goes through this, they get what they need when they need it and don’t when they don’t. 

Thor's powers are incredibly inconsistent too. In the first Avengers movie, he was summoning a lighting storm to decimate the enemies coming out of the portal. 

Then 80 percent of the time, we don't see his lightning power and he start fighting hordes of enemies hand to hand. 

Thor's inconsistency is similar to Storm's in the X-Men movies. She could summon tornadoes and hurricanes but only use lightning powers 80% of the time. 

NAILED IT

Breaking Bad

Mad Men

DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT

Battlestar Galactica

House of Cards

Damages

Bloodline

The Night Of

Banshee

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

SHIT THE BED

24

Dexter

On 5/1/2019 at 4:15 PM, Mercury33 said:

The more I’m removed from the emotion of seeing the movie and the more i think about it...the more average the movie becomes. I think after all is said and done it settles in at a 7/7.5. Another fun but ultimately forgettable Marvel movie that plays more into fab service then take any actual risk to be great. Not saying I didn’t enjoy it. I did. But I think I’d rank it in the middle of the second tier of Comic Book movies. 

Now that I have time to think about it, I think I'll give it a 8 out of 10. I honestly thought Infinity War was better.

What hurts this movie for me is that despite the secrecy surrounding the plot, the story was really disappointingly simple. They travel back in time to undo everything. The one thing that elevated the film was how well the emotional aspects were. Almost all the scenes that were supposed to hurt you, hurt you. 

8 hours ago, EternallDarkness said:

 

 

 

  Hide contents

Her finding Stark does seem rather convenient, but Stark and Nebula did have to be rescued...there's always a chance they'd been sending out a distress call and on her way back to Earth she happened to come across them...I don't have a major issue with the convenience of it all. And no she didn't do much in the movie, but then she shouldn't have had a major role anyway. She's a brand new character to the MCU, even though she's 'been' in the MCU since the 90s according to her movie. This was about wrapping up what was truly started in those early movies, namely wrapping up the story of the original Avengers. Most of the 'newer' characters had roles that were barely more than cameos. Screen time wise the only people besides the original avengers that got any real screen time were Nebula and Lang, and even Lang's time wasn't all that much, but he was needed since the quantum realm was the key to time travel. Which also addresses your other issue of neither Banner nor Stark figuring out quantum time travel in the five years since the snap. That wasn't an area of since that either of them was familiar with so it probably never occurred to either of them. It was Scott coming out and telling them about how time reacted differently in the quantum realm that got the ball rolling. But we've already seen Tony is a quick study. The whole  'when did you become an expert in thermonuclear astrophysics? ...last night' in the original Avengers and then him solving the Extremis issue in Ironman 3, so him working out the formula for time travel once he knew about it doesn't seem that far fetched.  

 

8 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 

  Hide contents

How did Thor get to the junk planet in Ragnorok, where the Hulk was? How did Quill manage to be in the same place and meet the rest of the Guardians? Because writers need to make plot happen.

 

1 minute ago, EternallDarkness said:

 

I don't know. I think they handled her well. 

  Hide contents

She gets Nick's distress call and comes running...showing up after everything has gone down, then she goes off, as she said every other world out there was dealing with the same shit as Earth. She doesn't show up immediately for the final battle because Strange doesn't know her so he doesn't pull her in...or more than likely Strange didn't pull her in because, and this is just my  theory, when the people on whatever planet she had been on suddenly reappeared so she knew something was up and came a running...arriving at the nick of time to play her part in the end game. 

  

8 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

  Reveal hidden contents

where was vision anyway??

18 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

you're assuming that stopping quill keeps Thanos from getting the gauntlet anyway

 

What does everyone think about:

36 minutes ago, IdeaOfEvil said:

 

  Hide contents

 

-The plot conveniences were a little eye-brow raising, but not bad. No one knew how to get the gems themselves, so it's a good thing it wasn't Rocket and Thor going after the soul gem and instead was Widow and Hawk, lol

 

-Tony was wounded, and Strange knew that Tony needed to die to save the universe. If Strange didn't hand over the gem right away, Thanos would have killed Tony and gotten the time gem anyways and that would be the end. It may not be the reason you want, but it's the reason they used.

  

 -Captain Marvel had a good moment where the audience was reminded that this problem wasn't just on Earth, and that she was busy with all the other planets in the galaxy. It was a decent statement that made sense for her not being there and kinda reminded you that this isn't just Earth's problem. Yea, her being able to body everyone would have stopped this war from happening if she was there the whole time. But then we wouldn't have this movie =) Everything else for that final battle (Strange not doing a whole lot, etc) can be chalked up to that final fight having to be Tony's. The Wanda power scene wasn't bad. Because they showed her in Civil War being able to fuck with Vision and his gem, her messing with Thanos wasn't so out of place imo. Clearly in Infinity War it shows that she just can't handle non 1-on-1 fights, lol

  

 

3 hours ago, fuckle85 said:

Just got back from seeing it. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The space magic stuff, Captain America using Thor's hammer, and most of the time travel stuff I'm ok enough with, but was there an explanation for why past Nebula's cyborg device thingy suddenly had a recording from future Nebula out of fucking nowhere?  

 

My problem is more:

i just came back and I have to say...I have mixed feelings. The movie really good, but it is not clear cut my favorite movie of the MCU. 

I think the first act of the movie has way too much exposition. Just too much back and forth over a single concept. 

The movies gets progressively better and the final resolution scenes are among the best in comic book history. 

A lot of things I like and don't like:

Looks great. Looks more unique than any Marvel film in recent years. 

1 hour ago, Nokt said:

For me personally I’d probably say

Bond > MI > Bourne

 

Yeah probably. 

On 3/20/2019 at 12:29 PM, Pikachu said:

For the people who don't like this deal, would you have preferred Comcast purchasing Fox?

Yes. I don't want everything to be under Disney's formula. Bob Iger is arguably the greatest CEO in the world and his business decisions made Disney into a unparalleled empire. But artistically,  people have stated that he really push for familiarity over risk taking and that is my problem with this deal. 

I just saw the movie. I really like it. I think the story has just enough heart for you to keep going and the characters showed enough charisma and personality without overwhelming the audience, something that other Marvel films had trouble with. Brie Larson is fine as Captain Marvel, despite a lot of criticism about her portrayal that I read about and it is always great to see Fury on screen doing something clever. 

I think the action sequences are definitely the weakest part about this movie. Spaceship dogfights? Really? Star Wars sort of owned every shot of those already. None of the villains are that interesting and she didn't really fight anyone of note. I also feel that she has gotten so powerful so quickly, all the battle scenes are sort of pointless anyway.

But overall, I enjoyed the movie. Not top tier Marvel, but a good mid-tier one. 

I think this is terrible for the industry. I also think this is bad for the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises.

12 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Ummm... and that hasn't happened yet because why?

Because they had executives that were dumb and thought that Zack Snyder is a some visionary director when he is basically only a visionary cinematographer? This is a company that made The Dark Knight and they squandered that prestige overnight. They could totally beat Marvel in quality with director-focused movies, instead, but they had zero vision and decided to complete with Marvel building a forced shared universe. 

Fox was able to make interesting movies because while the people there made dumb moves, at least a lot of the directors they picked had some kind of vision. 

On 3/11/2019 at 10:25 AM, skillzdadirecta said:

 

And Dark Knight and Logan did  Did we watch different movies? I loved both... they're my top two superhero films to date. But at the end of the day they are in fact, superhero films. I'm not sure exactly what it is you want that you think you won't get because of the success of the Marvel films but I hope you get it 

I think Dark Knight spent a lot of time melding various political issues including surveillance, vigilante justification, torture, using lies to justify an end, etc. A few of those themes are also the reason why I think Captain America: Winter Soldier is arguably the best Marvel film because it actually has something to say, even though most of it was broad strokes. A lesser level down are films like Venom, where it channels some cautionary elements about biotechnology, but everyone knows they just needed a plot device to justify the film's battles. 

Logan to me, is one of the few comic movies that reflects on a hero at the end of a journey where redemption is nearly impossible. The story has nothing to do with saving the world or battling a super villain, rather, but it is a reflection of what a man has to do to die with some kind of fulfillment. I have similar appreciation for A Days of the Future Past where the real villain in the film is humanity's distrust and our misguided beliefs of safety through separation. Read the synopsis of Noah Hawley's Doctor Doom movie:

"Hawley said during the panel, as he has before, that he envisions Doctor Doom as a geopolitical thriller more than a standard superhero movie. It begins with Doom putting a dome over Latveria, the fictional European country he rules. He later invites a female journalist to be his voice to the world, meaning its protagonist would be someone without superpowers."

Could this film be a disaster? Sure. But I give him mad respect for trying something different, for taking risks. I hope this gets made. Do I think Disney will support this? I am not holding on to hope. Marvel Studios is unquestionably in the driver seat. The industry goes where they will go. I will say that I am optimistic to see films like Black Widow, Black Panther, and even The Eternal getting made. Maybe none of those films are that groundbreaking, but getting indie directors like Cate Shortland, Ryan Coogler, and Chloe Zhao is a positive first step that they want more director input, and perhaps, more uniqueness. 

11 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

There's also Brightburn... but think of it like this, how many Dark Knights and Logan's were there before Dark Knight and Logan? Those films will always be exceptions to the rule because "adult" superhero films will always be hard to pull off. I would also argue that because of the current superhero boom that Marvel is largely responsible for, there's more of a chance that you'll see non traditional superhero films and shows. We already got Legion,  are getting Watchmen and The Boys on TV. There's also Morbius and the rumored Blade reboot... so yeah, there's plenty for everyone.

Yeah, it is hard to write those films, and as long as people settled for "easy" films, there will be very little incentive for studios to make "hard" ones. Yes, Legion and Marvel shows on Netflix like Daredevil are great, but the freedom and the creativity on TV/Streaming do not crossover to films. I wish they do. As for Blade and Morbius, I am not convinced they are not just stylized Marvel films with darker skins like Venom was. I doubt those movies will actually reflect on society culturally/politically or touch on the nature of the human condition. Brightburn is interesting, but probably more horror than drama.