Avengers 2 News, Rumors, Etc. Pictures until release...
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Basically, I have no problem with them calling it the Marvel Cinematic Universe just for the sake of distinguishing it from the Marvel Comic Book Universe.
I'm just saying that these top-down producer led films aren't actually cinematic.. but once in a while they do push to make it seem like they are. They know that the lowest common denominator won't catch on.
Comparison: I'm a big fan of most of the Star Trek films, but even of those that I would call the most cinematic of the series, I would not be so brazen to compare them with the greatest cinematic achievements over all the years that cinema has been out.
It's a blessing that Star Trek 2 turned out the way it did despite Meyer scaling back from being really cinematic: he had to, because of the budget, and, as he says, the limitations he faced forced him to make a stronger film as a result. The space beautiful, and, I would argue that it's cinematic, but compared with many other strong science fictions even of the time, I probably wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that TWOK is, shall we say, a true cinematic achievement.
I think, personally, that First Contact looks fantastic, but there are times when, despite how good it looks, there is something TV about it.. I would still rank it's cinematic quality above the Avengers, but I'd never argue it as a "great cinematic achievement", regardless of how much I like it.
Of course the insane thing is that, according to his own post, Alister Jarok should consider Star Trek 3 and Even Star Trek 5 cinematic. They are movies after all, right?
I'm just saying that these top-down producer led films aren't actually cinematic.. but once in a while they do push to make it seem like they are. They know that the lowest common denominator won't catch on.
Comparison: I'm a big fan of most of the Star Trek films, but even of those that I would call the most cinematic of the series, I would not be so brazen to compare them with the greatest cinematic achievements over all the years that cinema has been out.
It's a blessing that Star Trek 2 turned out the way it did despite Meyer scaling back from being really cinematic: he had to, because of the budget, and, as he says, the limitations he faced forced him to make a stronger film as a result. The space beautiful, and, I would argue that it's cinematic, but compared with many other strong science fictions even of the time, I probably wouldn't be so arrogant as to say that TWOK is, shall we say, a true cinematic achievement.
I think, personally, that First Contact looks fantastic, but there are times when, despite how good it looks, there is something TV about it.. I would still rank it's cinematic quality above the Avengers, but I'd never argue it as a "great cinematic achievement", regardless of how much I like it.
Of course the insane thing is that, according to his own post, Alister Jarok should consider Star Trek 3 and Even Star Trek 5 cinematic. They are movies after all, right?
Could you write "cinema" one more time please?
Definitely. Your friend is a good barometer because she saw the first one and thought it was only okay.
Except...how does that make her a good barometer exactly?
What is a good barometer when it comes to film? You're not right about the MCU any more than the rest of us are. We all just have different opinions.
Talk about thread drift.
I'm going to quote a post comic writer John Byrne (Uncanny X-Men, Fantastic Four, Superman: MOS, Avengers and many more titles) made about films and film critics; which I find to be good advice.
"Critics judge movies by a different set of criteria than those used by audiences. Some of those criteria make sense, some are based on the critic's personal snobberies, and some are based on skewed expectations (see above). Whatever combination these elements appear in, the result can be a review of a movie that is very much at odds with the opinions of the paying public -- and that can go in either direction, good or bad.
Ultimately, the only way to know if you'll like a movie is to pay attention to what the filmmakers are telling you about it. Are they selling a movie you think you'd like to see? Then go see it. (Of course, there is always the very real chance the filmmakers are lying to you!)"
The last part I find to be the best advice. Because it can be applied to ANY franchise.
Look at the Hobbit Trilogy that just finished. Is everybody satisfied with those films? Did Peter Jackson adapt the book in a way that people WANTED to see? The answer would be no for a lot of people.
The Star Wars Prequels. Did George Lucas create a story that everybody wanted to see? Haha, we all know the answer to that one.
JJ's Star Trek Into Darkness. Yet another attempt to capture the same lightning in a bottle of TWOK. Did JJ succeed? A lot of people were rustled by it and it was voted the worst Trek film by attendees at the Vegas Convention. Moreso than the 2009 reboot, I think STID gets flak because it's not a film fans wanted to see done again (TWOK, FC, NEM).
The Transformers films, the new TMNT film, the recent seasons of Doctor Who, James Bond during the Brosnan era, the Amazing Spider-Man series, the MCU films etc etc.
There's no rule saying you have to like something that is popular. People have different tastes. However, you decide for yourself whether you like/enjoy something other people are making.
I'm going to quote a post comic writer John Byrne (Uncanny X-Men, Fantastic Four, Superman: MOS, Avengers and many more titles) made about films and film critics; which I find to be good advice.
"Critics judge movies by a different set of criteria than those used by audiences. Some of those criteria make sense, some are based on the critic's personal snobberies, and some are based on skewed expectations (see above). Whatever combination these elements appear in, the result can be a review of a movie that is very much at odds with the opinions of the paying public -- and that can go in either direction, good or bad.
Ultimately, the only way to know if you'll like a movie is to pay attention to what the filmmakers are telling you about it. Are they selling a movie you think you'd like to see? Then go see it. (Of course, there is always the very real chance the filmmakers are lying to you!)"
The last part I find to be the best advice. Because it can be applied to ANY franchise.
Look at the Hobbit Trilogy that just finished. Is everybody satisfied with those films? Did Peter Jackson adapt the book in a way that people WANTED to see? The answer would be no for a lot of people.
The Star Wars Prequels. Did George Lucas create a story that everybody wanted to see? Haha, we all know the answer to that one.
JJ's Star Trek Into Darkness. Yet another attempt to capture the same lightning in a bottle of TWOK. Did JJ succeed? A lot of people were rustled by it and it was voted the worst Trek film by attendees at the Vegas Convention. Moreso than the 2009 reboot, I think STID gets flak because it's not a film fans wanted to see done again (TWOK, FC, NEM).
The Transformers films, the new TMNT film, the recent seasons of Doctor Who, James Bond during the Brosnan era, the Amazing Spider-Man series, the MCU films etc etc.
There's no rule saying you have to like something that is popular. People have different tastes. However, you decide for yourself whether you like/enjoy something other people are making.
I'm sorry, why is she a good barometer regarding Winter Soldier? It seems to me that Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic would be better barometers (RT has the advantage of elegance in simplicity - it doesn't tell how much people liked a movie, just that most people liked it).
Perhaps the visual style of the Marvel movies doesn't appeal to everyone, and perhaps they're not as daring and innovative as some other movies out there, but I do feel like they are consistent. If you're trying to build this huge movie universe where all of your individual characters come together at the end, you really wouldn't want your movies' visuals to vary that much, otherwise some of the films would look out of place.
I have enjoyed all of the Marvel movies to varying degrees, and "The Avengers" has been my favorite overall. I appreciate their visual similarities, and I think it helps them forms a coherent universe.
However, I do feel like Marvel may end up over-saturating their own market. The movies will all probably be successful, but after "The Avengers 2," I personally don't know if I'm going to be in the mood for too many more superhero movies. I'm afraid that Phase 3 will end up feeling tired and redundant.
I have enjoyed all of the Marvel movies to varying degrees, and "The Avengers" has been my favorite overall. I appreciate their visual similarities, and I think it helps them forms a coherent universe.
However, I do feel like Marvel may end up over-saturating their own market. The movies will all probably be successful, but after "The Avengers 2," I personally don't know if I'm going to be in the mood for too many more superhero movies. I'm afraid that Phase 3 will end up feeling tired and redundant.
The popularity of a movie is proven by its box office receipts. It shows how many people pay to see the movie. That's why Transformers 4 is the tenth best movie ever made
All humor aside, you realize you made two separate points that aren't connected, right?
Popularity is determined by box office receipts
Transformers is the 10th best movie
I think you left something out of your syllogism.
That might actually mean something if a) I was comparing their quality as films instead of just pointing out an example where things were explained to the audience in unnecessary detail to the detriment of the film (IMO) --which you suddenly don't want in the case of TESB vs. Marvel films, b) I was comparing it to The Empire Strikes Back as a whole rather than just a change made to the Special Edition, and c) the comparison isn't entirely subjective anyway, a concept you seem incapable of grasping. But you already knew all that, and this is just a way of sidestepping the actual point.
Ah, so James Cameron is no longer a "real filmmaker" either. How fortunate that we have you here to determine these things for the rest of us in the unsophisticated masses.
Remember this moment just in case later you decide to say you don't want to come off as sounding arrogant or anything.
You mean the government agency with the flying aircraft carriers and flying robot armored cars can afford a slightly more elaborate gate? The hell you say!
You make not knowing what you're talking about almost an artform itself.
I guess the MCU's terrible CGI is why Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier are nominated for Best Visual Effects Oscars?
http://www.movieweb.com/guardians-of-galaxy-captain-america-oscar-nominations
Among a host of other nominations and awards the MCU has received for visual effects:
https://www.facebook.com/MarvelCinematicUniverse/info?tab=page_info
http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Movie/Awards
But let's not go into the fact that Cap had to run back into a building that was in lockdown and get his bike and make his getaway.Nope, he can go from the central atrium of the Triskelion to the connected parking garage next store without ever having to leave the building. Not that it would matter if he did briefly leave the building, because he still needed a vehicle, and as you've pedantically ranted about repeatedly, the doors to the parking garage weren't closed yet.
What's left to know? We see him jumping the gate from a flat parking garage pavement. What is the great mystery you feel needs to be explained here?
People who need everything explained to them don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to accusing others of being indiscriminate and the lowest common denominator. They especially don't have much of a leg to stand on when they just took the term from my post and flipped it around using the "I am rubber, you are glue" gambit.
Oh, wait, why didn't you mention that your friend also didn't like it? That's the most important piece of information in this debate and trumps all other arguments soundly. I apologize for ever doubting you.
In an effort to explain everything for you, I should note that that part was sarcasm.
Oh no, you would be so arrogant. It's kind of a hallmark of your posts, in fact.
The insane thing is not Alidar's comment, but the fact that your nonsensical post looks like a Mad-Lib written by someone who could only use variations on the word "cinema."
I love the Brosnan era Bond films! Wish we'd have gotten that 5th one they were moving forward on...till Cubby Broccoli died and the "kids" inherited the Aston Martin only to ditch it in favor of doing Bourne 2.0 for the character.
Wait, where were we now? Oh, yeah!
Cinema.
Wait, where were we now? Oh, yeah!
Cinema.
Broccoli had no involvement in GoldenEye due to his health and died before work began on Tomorrow Never Dies.
That's correct. It was Broccoli's wife who was the Brosnan booster. When she died, Mikey and Babs dumped him. iirc
It's possible these are early versions of the effects and not the final ones.
^Very true. The first trailer for the first movie showed several shots that had effects added later.
The wife, I couldn't recall, then, sorry.
I just knew that when the "kids" took over they pushed Brosnan out even though Die Another Day (regardless what one's opinion is on the film) did solid at the box office and a 5th film with him was an option on his contract that got some talk...until she died.
And I've now read all of the posts FSM has made over the last couple days, thus I am now sad.
FSM re: your complaints about Cap's escape from the Triskelion, what is your obsession with needing to be shown everything when it comes to a sequence of events? You had a similar argument in the "Interstellar" thread where you complained about the lack of showing every detail and aspect of McConaughey's actions in the tesseract and how it related to events in the movie. The problem being the movie made it pretty clear what was happening without reading too much into it but you seemed to want the movie to literally spell out everything that was going on including the equation data McConaughey was sending.
Here, you seem to want to know the intricate details of how Cap managed to escape the Triskelion garage. Why?! What is to be gained to watch him rush into the garage, get into his bike, adjust the choke and throttle, jump on the starter, have it fail, make these adjustments again. Take the bike of it's stand then accelerate towards the door and then hop the bike over the closing gate. Which OMG!!!! Had a CGI lower portion to it.
Would anything at all have been gained by seeing all of that?
No?
So then why show it?!
You also seem to be taking the word "Cinematic" in the MCU's name a bit too literally in the very Fourth-Year in Columbia University Film School sort of way of meaning an "art form where every frame is crafted with the hair of angels to be utterly perfect in every respect" other than, "yeah, this stuff is live-action rather than ink on paper."
You seem to be taking things a touch too much, man.
FSM re: your complaints about Cap's escape from the Triskelion, what is your obsession with needing to be shown everything when it comes to a sequence of events? You had a similar argument in the "Interstellar" thread where you complained about the lack of showing every detail and aspect of McConaughey's actions in the tesseract and how it related to events in the movie. The problem being the movie made it pretty clear what was happening without reading too much into it but you seemed to want the movie to literally spell out everything that was going on including the equation data McConaughey was sending.
Here, you seem to want to know the intricate details of how Cap managed to escape the Triskelion garage. Why?! What is to be gained to watch him rush into the garage, get into his bike, adjust the choke and throttle, jump on the starter, have it fail, make these adjustments again. Take the bike of it's stand then accelerate towards the door and then hop the bike over the closing gate. Which OMG!!!! Had a CGI lower portion to it.
Would anything at all have been gained by seeing all of that?
No?
So then why show it?!
You also seem to be taking the word "Cinematic" in the MCU's name a bit too literally in the very Fourth-Year in Columbia University Film School sort of way of meaning an "art form where every frame is crafted with the hair of angels to be utterly perfect in every respect" other than, "yeah, this stuff is live-action rather than ink on paper."
You seem to be taking things a touch too much, man.
This isn't true, either. Brosnan signed a three-film contract with an option for a fourth, which Eon exercised for Die Another Day because the producers desperately wanted a 40th anniversary film and didn't want to re-cast the role. Brosnan's contract was up at that point, and while there were talks for a fifth film, there was never a contractual obligation -- nor an option -- for either party.
Brosnan had spoken to the producers about possibly doing a fifth film, but he was already pudgy as hell by the time Die Another Day rolled around, and taking the break to really make Casino Royale good was a step that even Brosnan rolled around to accepting.
By 100 people out of a convention of 1085 people.
i.e. 1/10th of the convention goers.
Its a shit poll.
Similar threads
