Dragonseeker

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Except The Dark Knight and Logan were successful too so... those types of films will still be made. There's so much content being produced that there's something for everyone. There's more than enough content out there these days for folks to fund something that suits their tastes. The Marvel films won't threaten that so anyone worrying about that is looking for something to worry about in my opinion.

I don't see a lot of those kind of films in the comic book world though. Which upcoming comic book film will be like The Dark Knight or Logan? The Joker and Dark Phoenix are the only 2 films that are possibly going for the more dramatic approach. Maybe The Black Widow film? There are like probably a dozen more comic book films for people who wants more Thor or Ant-Man.

12 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Not ruining anything for me because I generally don't give a shit... I was commenting on the topic at hand.  What a bunch of faceless strangers think about a given piece of entertainment has absolutely no bearing on whether I myself enjoy it or not. I actually feel bad for those that it does matter to because they can find themselves missing out on a lot of good experiences.

For me, the problem is, audience love things that I think would eventually lower standards, which in turn, affects me too. My issue with Marvel films is not that they are bad, they are not, but imo, they are good formulaic movies (sometimes great films). But because they are so successful, they are basically encourage all other studios to do the same thing. 

So instead of of more The Dark Knight or Logan, you get more Thors and Ant-Mans. That is great for everyone else, but sucks for me. 

For those of you who saw the movie, do you think I have to see this before Endgame? If this film has no critical elements that ties to Endgame, I might skip it until Blu-Ray. 

I enjoyed it. It is pretty predictable, but the acting is top notch. 

On 1/11/2019 at 10:08 AM, Greatoneshere said:

 

I will go to bat for The Village every time. It's mood, tone, atmosphere; it's beautiful cinematography. Its commentary on failed utopias. There's a lot to like in that film. 

I like The Village a lot. I don't like Signs though. That film was garbage. 

Don't agree with Scario. Not the best film, but not bad either. 

I can't see a middle ground to this movie. Whatever concept they are thinking, this is either going to work or be a disaster. 

On 11/29/2018 at 11:58 AM, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Beauty and the Beast was great, reviewed pretty well, and made a ton at the box office. I don't really think that's arguable. 

Beauty and the Beast has a 7.2 rating at IMDB and 71% fresh, 6.7 rating from the critics. It is the very definition of a mixed/good movie. But not great. 

Jon Favreau is a good director and I think this along with The Jungle Book will be two of the better adaptions. With that said, am I the only one who thinks this is visually not artistic enough? It lacks the majesty of the original. It feels somewhat sterile.

The cartoon is like Breath of the Wild.

This version is like a generic PS4/Xbox One game with great graphics but bad gameplay. 

Too much. 

No thanks. 

This sounds like a bad idea. But if it is anywhere near as good as the first one, why not? Hope they get Hans Zimmer back for the score. That was one hell of a score. 

7 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

The biggest “problem” with DoFP is that Raven’s character is the fulcrum that the fate of mutants is resting on... and then she’s completely gone from the coda in the theatrical cut. That and literally everything Trask does is just straight up super dumb for an allegedly intelligent person. It is a series of really compelling scenes but it’s stitched together to a somewhat uneven movie even if it’s entertaining throughout. It’s a blast to rewatch but I agree and don’t think it’s a great movie.

 

 

Uh I don’t think Singer tried to go “Marvel formula” with Apocalypse... at all.

 

The problem with Apocalypse is that every character is doing literally the stupidest thing they could do at every possible moment. Somehow four mutants are the tiniest nudge away from remaking the world in Apocalype’s image while also being 15 seconds worth of contemplation away from betraying him. Magneto’s character in that film is fucking terrible as is Charles’ reaction to it. “Some blue asshole reminded you that the earth was filled with magnetic elements and that’s all the motivation you needed to be loyal enough to him to literally rip the world apart? Well that’s over, are you sure you don’t want to be a grammar or high school teacher? No? Well okay... goodbye I guess, old friend, aka guy who was trying to make the world into an Art Deco shitshow literally 24 hours ago and probably killed thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people while doing that.”

  

Jean is written like a moron. Literally the same people who realized Havok needed to be trained in a concrete bunker for safety decided Scott should be trained outside. Apocalypse’s abilities make no fucking sense at all. Magneto’s brilliant idea to fight Apocalypse is killing him with chipping damage, except Apocalypse doesn’t take chipping damage. It doesn’t pick up from the end of DoFP properly. The movie is a total train wreck aside from one cool Quicksilver scene. It is bad, bad, bad.

Marvel Formula as in making a very straight forward movie with clear progression, ideals, themes, etc. It was the only X-Men film that tried to be a straight up superhero film since X1-X3. 

13 hours ago, TwinIon said:

I would argue that largely they have been trying to find "legit" people to come up with interesting stories. Sure, it was a purely commercial choice to have JJ Abrams to re-introduce Star Wars to moviegoers. Given how well the film performed, I think it's hard to argue with that decision. Since then, they've hired a variety of well regarded, small time filmmakers (Edwards, Johnson, Lord & Miller) to make movies that are rather unlike what we'd seen in Star Wars to date. I think it's fair to argue they haven't exactly pulled it off, and they haven't exactly let those filmmakers (except for Johnson) make their movies, but I give them credit for at least trying.

 

Now they're developing two separate trilogies outside of the Skywalker Saga. It's silly to tell them not to make money with the most lucrative franchise on the planet, but even with the uneven results, I think they've mostly been going in the right direction.

  

Personally, I think they need to give their films a bit more time to breathe. Release some of the pressure from the filmmakers, don't be so dogmatic about release dates, allow some of these films to spend more time in development with less of a time crunch. That now seems to be what they're doing, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.

Yep. What is the point of having guys like JJ Abrams if you are just going to remake A New Hope? JJ Abrams did a wonderful job with The Force Awakens, but that movie really set the direction of the franchise, and the direction is basically to retread old paths. 

The Winter Soldier, however derivative, is far superior to X-Men: Apocolypse. Singer tried to go all Marvel formula with Apocolypse and failed miserably. 

9 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

I really have to play KOTOR 2 one of these days. It was so broken when it first came out I abandoned it and never looked back. 

 

 

Solo wasn't about any of that stuff and people shat on it. It was a heist movie essentially.

I haven't seen Solo, but the problem is, Solo is about Solo. Again, retreading the past. 

Star Wars is a franchise that is basically stuck in mud, whether we are talking about characters, plot, elements, themes, etc.

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Star Wars has ALWAYS been "Good popcorn movies"... Star Wars and Jaws both started the modern day blockbuster as we know it. And the series has been around for what, 40 years at this point? If they were going to run out of gas (some would say they already have) they would have a long time ago. I LOVE Star Wars, but the series has never been serious science fiction and never claimed it was. It was born out of George Lucas' love for swashbuckling radio serials, Space Operas,  Samurai movies and folk lore from various cultures.

I think the problem for me is that Star Wars never grow as a franchise. Even after 8 mainline movies, they are always about the exact same things: destiny, The Force, rebels vs empire, light side vs dark side, etc. The series still has barely any nuances in characters, plot, themes, etc. And I don't see any of this changing anytime soon. 

6 hours ago, Remarkableriots said:

Marvel has 13 great movies not 6 or 7.

1.Guardians of the Galaxy vol 1

2.Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2

3.Thor: Ragnarok

4.Ant-Man

5.Ant-Man and the Wasp

6.Marvel's The Avengers

7.Avengers: Infinity War

8.Black Panther

9.Doctor Strange

10.Captain America: Winter Soldier

11.Captain America: Civil War

12.Iron Man

13. Spider-Man: Homecoming

You have a very low standard of what great is.

Looks fantastic. 

1 hour ago, johnny said:

First class is boring as hell when Kevin Bacon isn’t on the screen. 

 

They have two legit good superhero movies after all these years. 

X-Men: First Class is universally praised as a good film. 

X-men, X2, X-Men First Class, Days of the Future Past, Logan, Deadpool and Deadpool 2. 

That is 7 good movies.

If you are talking about great movies:

X2, X-Men: First Class, Days of the Future Past, Logan and Deadpool

That is 5 great movies. 

How many great movies have Marvel made again? The Winter Soldier, Infinity War, Civil War? Maybe you add Black Panther and Iron Man? So like 6-7 movies? I think the only difference is that Marvel movies are consistently good while Fox movies are not. But Fox's top tier easily equals Marvel's top tier. 

I hope Gambit gets made but I have my doubts. Gambit being a genre movie is something I look forward to. 

Kennedy built a billion dollar franchise with one flop and people thought she was fired?

Kennedy's only two real flaws are accepting such a conventional reboot and overextending the universe with movies like Solo. 

57 minutes ago, number305 said:

This is a joke right? No one really thinks fox has done a better job in the last decade than Disney... 

Better as in building a cohesive world? No. Better as in making compelling dramas and expanding beyond your typical formulaic superhero stories? Yes. Fox is just inconsistent with quality, but when they are on, they are damn good.  

Logan, Days of the Future Past, X-Men: First Class are the exact type of movies I am looking for. 

Trailer is ok. Much better than Apocolypse. I am looking forward to this because this is probably the last time I get to see a serious X-Men film before Disney makes everyone crack jokes with Tony Stark. 

Fox is the last bastion for good dramatic superhero films. 

On 9/12/2018 at 8:56 AM, skillzdadirecta said:

 

He probably likes how he looks in the beard.

 

 

If Aquaman, Shazam and the Wonder Woman sequel tank or underperform, we'll probably see a reboot or a different approach. They will probably focus on individual films rather than trying to emulate Marvel's shared Universe approach.

They should have done that from the start.