Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Captain Craig, Jul 17, 2012.
Is that directed at me?
Because I've been going on and on about MOS? In the past two days I was in the thread about Batman v Superman, but, I hadn't posted anything about MOS in a long time...
You do realize that there have been, and currently are, plenty of intelligent, quality TV shows produced under this model?
I don't mind shows being produced.
You do realize that we are talking about movies.
Which, lately, have been coming up worse than some of the TV series out there. Especially the serialized one where they maintain the same themes, style, and storytelling throughout their life.
Yanno, kinda like what Marvel is trying to do.
Yeah I miss it when a few effects in a film were actually special. The moment when Yoda lifts the X-Wing would not amaze some teen kid with a short attention span and a fetish for bright colors and nifty CGI boom boom explosions and bad snarky humor spoken by shallow characters (Feige's target demographic); they wouldn't understand or be amazed by how special that scene is. To me that scene is one of the most "special" scenes in all of science fiction/ fantasy
It's not the effect. It's the context.
That's true... absolutly agree with you on that.
But these days, kids are so used to things like that.. so used to people moving stuff around or the laws of physics being broken all the time. Effects are good but somehow I feel they aren't special anymore, and they lack charm.
You're missing my point. It's not the quality of an effect that has an impact, but the context. And "kids" are still moved by context. There isn't the same wonder on how an effect is done, which I think was the charm 30 years ago.
I would argue it's a good thing. You can't just throw up an effect and expect and ooo and awww. That effect has to mean something in the context of the story.
Yeah, I agree with that. The effect in itself shouldn't be what matters.
That being said, I don't think we're beyond being wowed by special effects. Go watch Life of Pi. Those effects are breathtaking.
You know, this could be a whole thread to itself.
I almost attempted starting one regarding the oft heard complaint that TNG Insurrection was just a longish episode of TNG released in the movies.
What is a movie and what is a tv show? Are they mutually exclusive?
It used to be a tv show is continuing and a movie is self contained, but no movie is "self contained" in the sequel era. Marvel has just accepted this from before the first movie even was made. It's somewhat like a tv show, in that it's interconnected, it's a series of movies. The story continues.
And look at most of the original sequels, they were tacked on for the money like Jaws 2 and Ghostbusters 2. The story was intended to be completed with the movie. Marvel rejects that lack of planning so that each movie seemlessly fits onto the end of the next and continues. (That's never been done before, with the possible slight exception of how Lord of the Rings was made.) It's great for keeping continuity, something a lot of flim makers or tv producers don't always care about, but it can have the impact of making each individual movie not "special" in of itself.
I think it depends on what is actually made, and of course opinions vary about "what's good" and "what's not"
For example, for me, I much prefer continuity. I'm actually a continuity nut. I don't know why, but if somebody does something in a show or movie and it matters later on and really means something, I love it. One of the best examples of recent memory and one of my favorite was on the Shield finale: Fury gave Coulson the Destroyer gun, the same gun he was holding when he was killed by Loki in Avengers, two years before, and he says, "I know what this does." I cheered when that happened. That was so good, it tied together so well, it was a direct answer to his line, "I don't even know what it does." I loved it. And Clark's delivery of the line was perfect. So when someone says Captain America TWS is actually Avengers 1.5, I say Bring It! I love Avengers and Captain America in particular, I can think of Avengers as Captain America 1.5, too! I don't have to wait 3 years to see my favorite characters, they might be back as quick as in 6 months. I like it.
Now, let's step back a bit, because there's quantity and there's quality. I think it's safe to say that CATFA, Avengers, and CATWS are quality movies. None of that getting a movie every year or 6 months would count a damn if they were like Captain America 1990, for example. That sucked so bad, I wonder that the black hole they were afraid the Hadron Supercollider was going to make wasn't created by that movie. I even like the terrible Reb Brown Captain America tv movies better than that one.
So, to sum it up. Lots is good if they's good on their own, lots of shit is still lots of shit, and I've liked all of the MCU movies so far.
Back to Ant Man, maybe Hydra wasn't inside Shield when Edgar started his AntMan movie 8 years ago and he didn't want to adjust plot points based on that. Did you think Shield was going to collapse like that 8 years ago? Sheild was so pervasive and omnipotent in the first phase of the MCU it looked like it would go on forever. I think they may have realised just about any movie where it's going bad for the hero, Shield could have been and easy machina ex dues (sp?) and bail it out for everyone, now that's gone. I think that's a much better direction to take, no super "big brother" to bail your plot out when it bogged down, but maybe that would have changed things around too much. 8 years is a long time for a pre production. I don't know, just putting that out there.
About the last couple of posts:
1. I wasn't impressed by the effects in Life of Pi. I could go off on why, but I won't. I think part of it is what they were used for, and just how awful that movie was in every way. The only thing I hold in high regard about that film is the kid that played teenage Pi. He was fantastic, and originally was just at the audition to watch his brother.
2. Continuity is cool, I guess... but despite appearances, Marvel cares very little for it. Most of their post credit bits from the Phase One films might speak to ideas that will be exolored in other films, but it hardly holds u to scrutiny to say that they actually happened that way. For example, in TIH, Stark seems to be the recruiter, not Fury. Thor's post credits stinger is redundant after watching Avengers.
In it's own way, Trek, with hundreds of episodes across a few different series and across many fictional years, had it much more challenging to keep up with continuity. Us fans can point out many spots where continuity fails, and some of them are obvious, but the scope of Trek is very broad. With the MCU, they spent millions to bring all of this continuity together but there's no story, no underlying themes, not drama under neath the surface that warrants it.. they are all just colorful and witty action films. The only one that tried to give this universe any real substance, and to have us look to the past films with different eyes is TWS. But it didn't have the courage of it's convictions, as the last act of that film was a cop-out.
For me, The Fountain, in a theater... takes my breath away.
Yeah, I think it's possible for everyone, young and old, to still be surprised by a visual moment in a movie.
Straight Up, I'm a sucker for a good story, with great characters, being told by a deft storyteller.
The VFX and overall visual style can shape the narrative of film more so than almost any other medium, but in the end when all is said and done... If it's not on the page, it's not on the stage.
That said, a mediocre story can be salvaged by great directing (to a point) but I'd much rather find myself in Camp 1 than Camp 2.
I think that video essay makes a compelling case about the state of contemporary film comedy, but I also think it gives McKay a bit of an unfair shake in its choice of examples. Granted, it is trying to make a point about comedy as a whole, not McKay in particular, but it's worth pointing out that McKay also directed this, which is hardly an example of what the author is complaining about:
McKay is also a solid action director -- better, in fact, than many people directing straight action movies.
On the subject at hand, I'm mostly relieved that Wright isn't working on a Marvel movie. A voice as talented and distinct as his was never going to be heard clearly by the time the finished product rolled around.
Although, on the other hand, considering that The World's End only cost $20 million to make, it's staggering to think what Wright could have done with ten times that amount.
McKay is not the one who's directing Ant-Man, though. He's just doing a script rewrite. The actual director is Peyton Reed, whose most recent movie "Yes Man" (which I watched last week) is pretty much the epitome of everything that the Edgar Wright video criticizes about contemporary comedy.
To be fair, though, I do seem to remember his earlier movies "Down with Love" and "Bring It On" having some visual flair.
To be fair, I would have cringed had I heard that the people behind You, Me, and Dupree were going to direct a Marvel movie.
All true. Just wanted to defend McKay for a second.
Helping to guide McKay through his portions of the Ant-Man re-write a report comes that production writers Andrew Barrer and Gabriel Ferrari are coming on board the production.
I'm kinda just ready for filming to start but will care more once GotG has come out cause that means Ant-Man will be last known film starting production. Avengers 2 is over 1/2 way done at this point and will be nearly done when Ant-Man begins production.
With all the "extra help" being considered, and the delays... I'm starting to get to the point where my expectations in general for Ant-Man have just completely bottomed out.
Optimism for Guardians of the Galaxy is currently quite high, and my anticipation for Doctor Strange is through the roof... but I'm getting the impression that Ant-Man is going to be more like Iron Man 2 than say Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
Separate names with a comma.