Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

It is kirk55555

 

There are soulless £200m dollar blockbusters and then there are blockbusters with more soul than some cynical indie movies. She’s throwing the baby out with the bath water here. If she stopped to think about it, I imagine that she’d accept that people like Mark Ruffalo, Cate Blanchett rarely if ever go for big payday outings; there must be more than dollar bills attracting them to the comic book movies they’ve done.

 

Forget it, Timby. It's kirk55555.

 

The things she complains about are pretty much true of all big blockbusters, not just superhero movies. And I disagree that they are all just "theme park rides" a lot of them have a lot more under the surface if you are willing to look.

Meh, the vast majority of the time all I want is "stimulation" so I'm perfectly happy with the way things are now.

 

To be fair, she was the weakest part of Silence of the Lambs, and she didn't "make it", she just acted in it. Still, I figured I'd give her credit even if I liked Julianne Moore much better in the role in Hannibal. I get that some ancient artsy film by Scorsese has basically let Jodie Foster coast for decades when it comes to fans of artsy films, but the when the biggest films she's been in outside of Silence of the Lambs and that ancient film are stuff like Contact and Elysium, she doesn't really deserve the reputation she has among some people. Plus, being in Elysium alone makes her "fraking" comments even stupider. That movie was real, grade A shit from the little bit I can be bothered to remember.

I don't give a shit about Jodie Foster, I've apparently only seen two of her movies (and maybe part of Contact, but that was a long time ago and I might just be remembering seeing/reading a review of it somewhere). But she's said stupid shit, which is annoying, and backs it up by having no real credibility in the first place being a c-list actor at least when it comes to mainstream films. Just like when James Cameron talked shit about Wonder Woman, a lot of overrated people in Hollywood seem really bitter that people are enjoying and paying to see things they don't consider worthy. At least Cameron has more then one decent film on his resume, though.

 

Probably none by your standards.

 

James Cameron made Terminator 2, Aliens and Avatar. Two great movies, the best in their respective franchises, and one decent, if somewhat unoriginal, movie.

He also made Titanic, which I consider to be a boring dumpster fire, but two great and one good movie isn't a bad run. Its more then some directors have had.

 

Why laughing? It's pretty common to hate on Titanic these days.

 

It was more common to hate on Titanic back then, if you were a teenage boy at the time, because all the teenage girls were crazy about Leo.

Today, I'm still not a fan of the movie, but I don't doubt for a second that it's a really good movie. Movies don't need to speak to me personally in order to be good.

 

Because calling Titanic a "boring dumpster fire" is ridiculous, just like most things that @kirk55555 says.

 

Kirkfives being kirkfives.

 

There are plenty of constructive criticisms of that movie, such as "why do you need a villain in the middle of a disaster".

 

Meh. It has some great moments and it has some terrible moments. I think it contained a number of questionable filmmaking choices, albeit not usually too extreme in terms of impact (like, did it really need that much detail/running time? And did we really need to watch Bill Paxton interview an old lady?).

But the ending is visually idiotic. Whoever was in charge of picking that massive piece of driftwood that could have easily fit both of them on it as the centerpiece of the great climatic 'unavoidable sacrifice' Jack makes to save Rose.... I'm not sure I've ever seen a dumber filmmaking decision outside of Spielberg's unbelievably lazy edit job to erase the Velociraptors from the ending of the Lost World.

 

Seems we've moved on from debating whether The Godfather is a good movie to whether Titanic is a good movie. And possibly whether The Lost World was a good movie.

 

I don't like romance movies to begin with, so making out out of a disaster, making it last approximately 12 years, and then only spend a small fraction of the time on the only interesting part of the story (the Titanic hitting an iceberg and sinking) just makes it intolerable for me. Its actually a lot like Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, a WAY too long, shitty romance film based on a horrible event that barely even uses the event its based off of. PH getting a slight edge from me because its 12 minutes shorter and I like Ben Affleck and Kate Beckinsale as actors more then I like DiCaprio and Winslett.

As for "Disaster" films, Titanic is shit. It barely has the disaster in it, its mostly about the bland romance. The average SyFy channel original disaster movie is a better disaster movie then Titanic, since at least those movies are usually about whatever over the top disaster they say they're about.

 

Your inflammatory tactics end here. You know damn right that if you use this kind of harsh language people will respond to you. There is a word for that, which is against the rules to use, and you are it.

 

Actually, I'm not. I think its a shitty movie. by your logic, no one on this forum can call something shitty, and (spoiler alert) a lot of people do that. So, no, I'm not trying to inflame the (weirdly numerous) Titanic fanatics who are apparently browsing a Star Trek forum. I'm just stating my opinion of a movie, and I'm far from the only person to use "shit" as a descriptive when talking about things on this forum.

 

Nobody other than you and a select few others go around almost every thread literally calling things "shit", knowing full well that this isn't a commonly held opinion. "I don't like thing". "Thing is shit". Do you see the difference?