You say that like they're mutually exclusive concepts.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
You say that like they're mutually exclusive concepts.
He's an angry little hipster douche bag who just clearly knows so much more about films and entertainment than the rest of us.
Let me see if I can isolate a "point" he seems to think is poignant and worth dwelling on to point he ends the video on that "point".
TWO RAZZIE AWARDS
James Cameron also made Piranha 2: The Awakening before becoming...James Fucking Cameron.
Confused Matthew seems to want to ignore the possibility that under the right tutelage, freedom or access to resources that one could grow in their craft. That one could go from Razzie to Respectable. Incredulous Douchebag.
So his other strung together "point" is that he's really hung up on Edgar Wright being let go. Which he goes onto say "look at these people who agree with me"(really just Rourke). He also ignores the fact that Norton has a history of being his own over bearing ass as well. That he himself is a bit of prima donna.
Confused Matthew is simply just a tool who thinks he's above whatever anyone else calls "cool". That his eye for art is above the commercialization trap the rest of us allegedly fall into.
What a joke. First Confused Matthew video I've seen....and last.
He can be angry without me.
I watched about 15 minutes of the video and shut it off after his screaming and ranting got to be too much. If you think he had some good points, then make them yourself here and we'll discuss them.
Because we didn't find them very interesting or novel so em... Nobody wants to?
Which of his particular points do you think we should discuss?
Heck, Sandra Bullock won a Razzie and an Oscar in the same year - winning a Razzie really doesn't mean anything.
By that logic then nether does winning an Oscar....which I suppose is true enough given how those awards are chosen and who gets to vote on them.
Mind you, unlike the Oscars, I like to think that actually turning up and accepting a Razzie *does* indeed mean something. Halle Berry has my eternal respect for that acceptance speech.
I find that since FSM hasn't specified the "points" he thinks that Confused Matthew made that are worth discussion and merit to be....most telling.
I've been away for some time.. family was visiting for the holiday. Hopefully tonight I will get to outlining those points... natch!
His take on Gunn is outright dumb. Gunn's previous movies, Slither and Super, were cult favourites. The "two Razzies" that he repeatedly harps on were group awards for his contribution to Movie 43, which sucked, no question, but there were tons of talented people involved in that.
Many of his comments are predicated on the idea that the movies aren't good on their own (and hence, that the shared universe is masking it), which is inherently subjective, so it's kind of pointless to argue over it (whereas I think most people would say the movies are good on their own, and the shared universe increases their enjoyment).
In one area I'll say he has at least a defensible position, namely, that he thinks Marvel Studios has screwed over some people who work with them, and I don't think you can really deny that they play hardball in terms of getting all their ducks in a row. Some of that is unpleasant. But I think that's ultimately always part of the movie business, when it's Marvel's hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. Some people will adapt well to the more producer-oriented Marvel process, some won't. And I agree that Iron Man 2's creative process was disjointed, and resulted in the studio's most lacklustre product, but they've gotten far more skilled at it since then.
He also has a spurious little mini-rant suggesting that the current serialization trend is some kind of backwards step to a sort of movie that became irrelevant when TV was invented, which is not true. It's certainly true that TV is the best visual medium for serialization of this sort, but TV does not have the budget to make these kinds of stories. Indeed, big budget action is arguably the one thing that movies unquestionably still have over HBO and the like (take a look at Game of Thrones' "Blackwater", which pushed TV budgeting to the limit, and was a great episode, but any modestly-budgeted film could do better purely in terms of spectacle).
Many of his comments are predicated on the idea that the movies aren't good on their own (and hence, that the shared universe is masking it), which is inherently subjective, so it's kind of pointless to argue over it (whereas I think most people would say the movies are good on their own, and the shared universe increases their enjoyment).
In one area I'll say he has at least a defensible position, namely, that he thinks Marvel Studios has screwed over some people who work with them, and I don't think you can really deny that they play hardball in terms of getting all their ducks in a row. Some of that is unpleasant. But I think that's ultimately always part of the movie business, when it's Marvel's hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. Some people will adapt well to the more producer-oriented Marvel process, some won't. And I agree that Iron Man 2's creative process was disjointed, and resulted in the studio's most lacklustre product, but they've gotten far more skilled at it since then.
He also has a spurious little mini-rant suggesting that the current serialization trend is some kind of backwards step to a sort of movie that became irrelevant when TV was invented, which is not true. It's certainly true that TV is the best visual medium for serialization of this sort, but TV does not have the budget to make these kinds of stories. Indeed, big budget action is arguably the one thing that movies unquestionably still have over HBO and the like (take a look at Game of Thrones' "Blackwater", which pushed TV budgeting to the limit, and was a great episode, but any modestly-budgeted film could do better purely in terms of spectacle).
Daredevil has cast Stick, the man who trained Matt in martial arts and how to use his radar sense.
Once again, we should probably use this thread.
I took this thread for discussion about all the past products so we don't have to risk spoiling someone who hasn't seen something specific. It was created during TWS and AoS so it'll be more relevant after AoS comes back. But it's not the Netflix show thread. The other thread is for that.
I'm more than a little surprised by this about Cap 3. And damned excited !
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/enterta...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_255606
I specifically draw your attention to :
‘Joe Russo told the publication that he’d be interested in getting Marvel characters under contract at another studio for a “Black Widow-sized” role in the third movie‘.
Even if possible, who ?
I can't see it being anyone from the X-Men or F.F.
Spidey ? The franchise could benefit from guest spot...
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/enterta...m_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_255606
I specifically draw your attention to :
‘Joe Russo told the publication that he’d be interested in getting Marvel characters under contract at another studio for a “Black Widow-sized” role in the third movie‘.
Even if possible, who ?
I can't see it being anyone from the X-Men or F.F.
Spidey ? The franchise could benefit from guest spot...
Are there any real compatability issues between the MCU and the Spidey- franchise? I read an on-line theory that it could only work if the Spidey movies were both pre-Avengers, but I can't recall the why of it.
I don't really see why. I can't think of anything in the Spiderman movies about there not being any other superhumans, and they were going to put the Osbourne tower in Avengers (or Stark Tower in Spiderman, I don't recall) weren't they ?
I'd see X-Men as being potentially more problematic. With costume heroes active since WWII in the MCU, the mutant hysteria seems a bit odd. However, with that addressed somewhat in the late 60's (Days of Future Past) that could work too.
Inventive retcon, handwave, whatever...
I think they're both technically compatible, but there's a bit of a disconnect (one would imagine the events of one should make a dent in the New York city of the other, but they don't). One of the ASM movies planned to have Stark Tower in the skyline, iirc. The relationship between Sony and Marvel seems less toxic than that of Fox and Marvel. [ETA: We cross-posted about Stark Tower in ASM]
But I'm still doubtful that they'd want to do it. Logistically, it might be difficult to pull off with Andrew Garfield and using a different actor would dilute Sony's Spider-Man brand too much.
Anyway, I think Civil War is too complex a story to make just a Captain America story. Particularly since it's not Peter Parker they'd need, it's Tony Stark.
But I'm still doubtful that they'd want to do it. Logistically, it might be difficult to pull off with Andrew Garfield and using a different actor would dilute Sony's Spider-Man brand too much.
Anyway, I think Civil War is too complex a story to make just a Captain America story. Particularly since it's not Peter Parker they'd need, it's Tony Stark.
Sub-Mariner...?
Yeah, I'm guessing it's characters like this - under contract with the other studios, but not being used. I sincerely doubt they'd even consider trying to get Spider-Man, the X-Men, or the Fantastic Four into Captain America 3.
I don't see a pressing need to bring Spidey into a Cap movie...but there's a stronger Cap/Subby connection, at least in the comics.