battlewraith

Right, so if they never posted anything positive, about anything, ever --THEN they would be grifting. LOL! Yes I've watched their content. The video I linked, if you removed the context, would be indistinguishable from his actual content. Always huh? Got some quotes?

Whataboutism. You should maybe not listen to those people either. I looked up reviews of the Marvels. Audience reviews are generally higher than the critical reviews were. And if you look on something like Rotten Tomatoes for instance, the highly rated critics gave it an even worse score. So that's not a profound indictment of critics.

Ah the irony, given how little it takes to elicit that kind of response from you. But let me clarify things. It's not about difference of opinion or worldview, particularly regarding a film that hasn't even been released yet. (maybe you'll even see it if your mates give the thumbs up). It's about grifters. Shitty, formulaic would be critics who crap on films to entertain an aggrieved audience who wants to see these films fail. They'll call out "what we all know" and then clutch their sphincters tight as they wait for the receipts to trickle in, praying for a flop to prove them somehow right. Fortunately, any shtick gets old and played out. And sometimes they themselves reveal why nobody should take them seriously.

I'm hopeful that people will eventually stop letting social media hacks poison their perception of pretty much every big tent superhero film that comes out. Edit: to be clear, CriticalDrinker is one such hack in case there was any confusion.

Wyatt Russel as John Walker seems like 20% Snake Plissken mixed with 35% Jack Burton.

I always love to hear auteurs weighing in on Disney movies.

Yeah I knew who they were. I still don't see who was really wanting to see this on the big screen. The characters were niche af. The 2008 series that the movies seem to be based on was cancelled after 25 issues. Regardless, the point is that if Gunn had failed people would be saying "yeah that was obviously a bad idea for a general audience."

There are like 6 fight scenes in the movie. Then there is a humorous team building scene, a scene where Bob tries to help them escape soldiers, and a kind of metaphorical face-down-your-demons scene where they help Bob. I don't think it was lacking action. I think that issue might be that the fight scenes probably come across as less consequential in the scheme of things. The characters are very upfront about being underpowered and ill-equipped to deal with the situation.

If something works, people will act like it was obvious it would work. If something doesn't work, people will act like it was obvious it wouldn't work. Who was clamoring to see a Guardians of the Galaxy film? Who thought, based on comics sales, that obscure characters like Rocket Raccoon and Star Lord were good source material for a big budget franchise? I sure as hell didn't. And if Gunn hadn't pulled it off, people would've been pointing to all of the obvious reasons why it was a bad idea.

There's action in this film, but imo it's almost like an inversion of a typical action film where you have skimpy characterizations inbetween big action setpieces. This movie was about characterization and the action was really just there to move things along. Which worked because the actors gave really solid performances and made these characters relatable and likeable.

Nobody in my family wanted to see this movie. After watching a lot of reviews and reading people's reactions to it, I got mildly interested. I talked my wife and older son into going and we all liked it. There was a fairly decent crowd and they seemed to like it. As we were leaving, I could hear people telling each other that they liked it. It was a lot more entertaining than I thought it would be.

The Russo brothers just did The Electric State, which had a massive 320 million dollar budget and was horribly reviewed. I think that demonstrates the problem with assuming that you can bank on previous successes. And I don't think that Disney is just willy-nilly throwing noobs at projects. I think they typically assign people based on their previous work, which i think is a rational strategy but no guarantee for success. Josh Trank was selected to direct the ill-fated 2015 Fantastic Four based on 2012's Chronicle, which was a really good indie superhero film.

I was on a team of three one time. I kept asking one of the others to do something and they never replied. Finally, I asked the third person what was going on. He communicated with the second person and then told me that the guy had me on ignore. I asked him to ask the second person why I was on ignore (I didn't recognize the global or anything). The third person said that the second didn't remember why I was on ignore. I think this is reasonable QOL suggestion. I think a lot of people are prone to use ignore and then just forget about it. It doesn't just affect them.

Spectacle is relative. What someone considers to be crap is going to be relative to what they are used to seeing. I think that's the point and it's true. This particularly relates to fight sequences, special effects, car chases, etc. Something can be really good for being an innovative (or even simply unorthodox) take on the standard formula. The first John Wick film was great. The subsequent films were nowhere near as memorable as the first. Any formula for success is going to wear out it's welcome eventually.

If, instead of waiting for Critical Drinker's review of this film, people sat through his Rogue Elements: A Ryan Drake Story before seeing Thunderbolts*, their appreciation of the Marvel film would probably go up half a step, if not a full ranking.

I think it's a very difficult problem and there's really no objective answer to it. It's almost like alchemy at this point. If the right ingredients are there in the right quantity it will work. I've never been a big Superman fan. Despite that fact, I grew up with the Christopher Reeves movies. I watched Smallville. I own the Bruce Timm Justice League animated series. I think I saw 2 of the movies where Henry Cavill was Superman. For me personally, there's a strong disincentive to see a new Superman movie with a new actor because I don't want to sit through all of the familiar aspects of the story yet again. I feel the same way about Spiderman. The first Tom Holland one was a surprise because they seemed willing to just skip over some of that baggage. They glossed over Uncle Ben's death and made Aunt May younger and attractive. They took one of the most oddball Spiderman villains, the Vulture, and made him into an actually relatable villain. One who was not some world ender that needed to be stopped at all costs. I think these choices were kind controversial for a well established character but they worked. I found the movie a lot more enjoyable because of it. Maybe that's where Gunn's inclinations lie.

Lol I went on and on and on because you and others kept quoting me. Don't cry about it. The movie will eventually come out, so we will have answers to a lot of the objections (whether Pasco will work as Reed, etc.) If Sue in the film is put in charge of everything, starts barking orders and making the others look stupid, you can proudly say I told you so. If it turns out to be a reasonable depiction of the character for 2025, I'll point to all the whinging you did over nothing.

TLDR Version of this thread: 1. This movie will suck because of Pedro Pascal 2. This movie will suck because of time travel 3. RDJ as Doctor Doom?!?! 4. This movie will suck because of the fake trailer I just watched. Nothing can polish this turd! 5. Real trailer looks good. Oooops turd got polished. 6. Digression about Superman's disguise. 7. Griping about modern audiences. 8. Of course Reed is a dick and will talk down to his wife. 9. No, Sue can't be a bossgirl. She's a mom. Haven't you seen Aliens?!? The thread was rife with negativity from the get-go. I'm looking forward to it. That first trailer won me over. I think strong visual style is the key to success for this film. I also read articles about Sue and Johnny that make them sound like thoughtful interesting takes on the characters. Beyond that I don't want to know much more because I want to go in not knowing how things will play out.

Some people can't grasp the difference between dislike of certain types of people and dislike of certain types of characterizations, particularly in fiction. Some people understand the difference, but will equate the two things in order to deflect criticism that they don't like. An easy way to see if somebody has an issue with a female character--put that character in charge of something. See who gets mad. Also, Alex I'll take therapist for $200.

I was done yesterday.

🫠

You are the counterpart to those people. You would probably get more enjoyment out of media in general if you stopped letting twitter, social media influencers, etc. predigest them for you.

Again. Ripley was a strong character in the first film and none of that was driven by maternal instinct. AFAIK, none of the other films that feature Siqourney Weaver besides Aliens feature her acting out of maternal instinct. None of the more recent films in that setting, despite having a variety of strong female protagonists, follow that cliche. It was a gimmick that appeared in one film. The idea that Ripley doing what a team of highly trained, well armed soldiers were unable to do--is somehow because of maternal instinct--is absolutely ridiculous. It was because she was already shown to be extremely competent in the first film. Characters who are mothers or act out of maternal instinct are not necessarily weak, shallow or boring. Relying on that as a crutch to ramp up interest in a character is weak or cliche storytelling. Was Ripley diminished by it? No. Did it add anything to the character? Not really. It just added suspense in an action film. Ironically, the problem some people have here with Sue (potentially) in the upcoming film is the inverse of the logic being deployed here for Ripley. Ripley is not diminished by Cameron depicting her as have maternal instinct. But Sue, an established mother figure, is going to become an asshole or somehow destroy the film if she's given a leadership role. I actually don't think all this whinging is about Sue anyway. It's about Reed. Just as a vampire recoils from the light of day, some dudes are horrified by the thought of a cherished male hero being upstaged by a woman.

LOL just stop. You're actually starting to make me want to see this movie.

Ripley was brought up in the context of this discussion as an example of a strong "mother type character" by someone who seemed to be unaware that the first Alien film was a thing. Which is overt fail, because--as you point out-- Ripley was a compelling character in the first film where there was no indication of her mothering anything.