Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graviton
Lol you hating on Marvel too much, didn't you like First Class?
|
I'm talking about Marvel Studios. They deserve to be hated on ... Movies being made in marketing office think tanks for kids, instead of by film makers.
First Class was okay. Good in parts, but apart from Fassenberg it was whatever. Kevin Bacon as the villain was ridiculous. Un-intentionally funny, too.
It had a bunch of no name actors, C class roster of X-Men characters too. Like I said, good in parts but it isn't iconic or anything.
Quote:
|
They said they ****ed up with Iron Man 2, that's why 3 will be more like the original.
|
So they just want to re-make the original? Even without Faveraeu? And a visibly less interested Downey Jr?
RDJ looked bored as hell in Avengers. And his shtick wasn't as cute in IM 2 as it was in the original.
In the original he had the appropriate amount of charm, wit (without being annoying) with actual depth, character development, sincerity and nuance.
That was gone from his performance in both IM 2 and Avengers. Seemed like he said to hell with it, and was doing a caricature of himself instead.
IM 3 looks like one giant rip off of TDK Rises.
Quote:
|
everything needs to be gritty, realistic and dramatic
|
Where did I say everything needs to be gritty, dark, or dramatic?
I completely understand not every character is Batman. So the dark visuals, nihilistic undertones, noir type cinema, and tragic character arcs aren't a fit with every mythology.
But realism is a must, as is drama. Drama is what makes compelling stories and characters. Well, realism is the wrong word, plausibility is a must. Otherwise you're just making a campy, live action cartoon strictly for kids.
The best comic book movies, which are ADAPTATIONS of material, don't literally translate from page to screen. Like say that ridiculous CA costume in Avengers.
With real world people, actors, scenarios in order to make a movie more investment worthy, you take the fantastic characters and ideas and ADAPT them to the real world. Thus, making them plausible.
Thus there are a certain amount of changes that need to be made to make things believable or palatable. Otherwise, just make a full blown cartoon movie for kids.
That's why the first Iron Man works. It's plausible.
Quote:
|
Oh and Blade 2>Blade dawg, come at me.
|
On what grounds? The over the top, hyper stylized, idiosyncratic, redundant sequel made by the horrendous and ridiculously over the top "director" Guillermo Del Toro?
Blade 2 has moments, mainly because of Wesley Snipes complete ownage of that character, and the moments of levity from Ron Pearlman. Outside of that, the film is worse on every level.
That "gritty" feel is what gave the film such appeal, and gave it the cult following it deserved. Blade 2 takes things WAY over the top.
So maybe in essence, you prefer the more hyper stylized, campy, and cheesier take on comic book characters.
What?
Quote:
|
I care more about the RT score, Man of Steel may end up higher than Iron Man 3. Anything with Nolan's name on it gets extra respect.
|
Because his stuff deserves it. M.O.S. much like Batman Begins in 2005, is having to resurrect a franchise from beneath the earth. Going into a film w/o hype, and having to fight the demons of crappy movies that came before it an up hill battle.
IM 3 will get swarmed by the masses, and they'll think it's good even if it isn't. I mean hell, Avengers has like between 94% - 96% on RT. That movie was balls outside of the Hulk in the 3rd act.
I don't go by RT score in all cases. Some of them are way off ... as you can see.
Re: Chris Nolan / Zack Snyder "MAN OF STEEL"
