It is, people look back on most of John Carpenters' works from the 80s (which weren't big hits back then) and see them as masterpieces nowadays (The Thing, Escape from New York).
John Carpenter's movies were popular back then and were usually slammed by critics, not audiences.
Similarly, people are more willing to look back at stuff like SM2 and Dark Knight and accept the flaws they originally didn't notice.
That doesn't really makes sense, considering that the quality is not affected by time, and neither are flaws. Flaw is flaw, doesn't matter how old the movie is. Citizen Kane is still considered the greatest movie ever made, despite the fact how old the movie is.
Or people who rewatched the older CBMs nowadays and notice stuff they didn't notice before, flaws.
If that is the case, then I don't think a lot of MCU movies will stand a test of time, because their (glaring) flaws don't need long passage of time to be noticed.
Time will tell. But people acknowledge their flaws more openly than older films anyways.
But I guess you are not part of those
people, since you defend every bit of flaw that anyone will point out in the MCU movie that you like (aka every MCU released).
It was.
No.
That's why we got insanity like people wanting the Joker to be retired as a character
Any factual evidence, beyond your delusional, self-made claims that have no validity?
because of how much they worshiped the Nolan Joker.
Nah
Yah.
it's a testament to how deep peoples' shame towards Comic Books was.
First of all, are you ashamed that your vocabulary has the most redundant, trivial speech patterns imaginable?
Second of all, I don't know why would this imaginary "shame" play some kind of a role in this. Majority of those who watch these comic book movies don't read comics anyway. So I don't think they are aware of that "shame" about which you're talking about.
Third of all, aren't you ashamed of the comics yourself? You trashed almost every iconic comic that I can think of. You trashed such influential comic book creators like Bob Layton, Chris Claremont, Jim Lee, Denny O'Neil, and many others. And, what is more contradictory, is that you have on daily basis defended many changes that were done to the source material in the MCU, usually by throwing shade at the source material and decreasing its value as a form of art.
Aren't you ashamed to be a shameful liar?
And by that same token, people who once worshiped TDK
A) For someone (aka you) who blatantly worships MCU movies as if they are now be-all and end-all of cinema, I don't think you're validated to say any of this.
B) I find your fixation on The Dark Knight quite self-contradictory. Looks almost as if you have some kind of obsession with the movie.
look back and acknowledge it has flaws whereas before they wouldn't.
People acknowledge them when they see them. If the movie that they are watching doesn't make them think of them, they won't find it. Bad movies (Thor 2, Iron Man 2) have more flaws than positives, therefore people focus more on flaws than on anything else. But if someone intentionally looks for the flaws to hate the movie (aka you), then of course you can say that. But it's hypocrisy in some way, since you examine flaws of movies that are considered better than what you like in order to validate movies that you like, the flaws of which you defend rabidly.
reply
share
samhmd-7489
8 years ago
John Carpenter's movies were popular back then and were usually slammed by critics
At best, his 80s movies were moderate successes with even the audiences. It took time for them to be recognized as big successes.
Likewise, if SM2 came out today people would complain how silly it was for Ock to be a man manipulated by the tentacles, the "Raindrops" scene, the idiocy of his dumping the Core in the water somehow stopped it, MJ in general, etc.
reply
share
mh-newressistance
8 years ago
At best, his 80s movies were moderate successes with even the audiences. It took time for them to be recognized as big successes.
Hardly. If his movies weren't popular with the audiences in the first place, they would not have become better after such long passage of time. More likely, they would age poorly after that.
Likewise, if SM2 came out today people would complain how silly it was for Ock to be a man manipulated by the tentacles
No more than people who complain about how Zemo's plan in Civil War was plain retarded and impossible for one man to achieve.
the "Raindrops" scene
Raindrops scene was clever, actually. For someone who claims that comic book movies that try to be dark and gritty are "ashamed", it's very hypocritical of you to be ashamed of that scene.
the idiocy of his dumping the Core in the water somehow stopped it
Is it as dumb as the convenient defeat of aliens in the Avengers?
MJ in general
She's not Jane Foster, though.
etc.
Hardly. Spider-Man 2 was a great movie when it came out; it's a still a great movie now. Just like Superman 1978. Age of Ultron was average at best when it came out, and it did not aged well.
reply
share
samhmd-7489
8 years ago
Hardly. If his movies weren't popular with the audiences in the first place, they would not have become better after such long passage of time.
With his niche audiences and people who liked him for his success with Halloween, maybe. With the general public, it took time. He and Kurt Russell even joke about it.
No more than people who complain about how Zemo's plan in Civil War was plain retarded and impossible for one man to achieve.
Nah, Zemo's plan wasn't that complex once you stop asking to be spoonfed. Ock's whole tentacles thing was just a cop-out.
Raindrops scene was clever, actually.
No more than the "Spider-Man Night Fever" scene was.
Is it as dumb as the convenient defeat of aliens in the Avengers?
The Chitauri defeat wasn't dumb in the first place, so yes the Mini-Sun thing was worse.
She's not Jane Foster, though.
Right, Raimi's MJ is just bad.
Hardly. Spider-Man 2 was a great movie when it came out; it's a still a great movie now. Just like Superman 1978. Age of Ultron was average at best when it came out, and it did not aged well.
If you expect films about paragons who need villains to drive their plots, maybe.
reply
share
mh-newressistance
8 years ago
With his niche audiences and people who liked him for his success with Halloween, maybe. With the general public, it took time. He and Kurt Russell even joke about it.
Not really. His movies, even those that bombed in theaters, did great on home video, usually. So there was some appreciation for his work during his early days.
Nah, Zemo's plan wasn't that complex once you stop asking to be spoonfed.
Considering that everything in his plan was based solely on coincidences and personal decisions of different individuals, it is pretty complex. Not even complex; it's just impossible.
Ock's whole tentacles thing was just a cop-out.
No bigger cop-out than "Shield is Hydra" thing, that was never implied in any of the movies before Winter Soldier.
No more than the "Spider-Man Night Fever" scene was.
I'm sorry that you are ashamed of scenes that lightheartedly illustrate hero moving from depression into happiness. (I guess it'd be better if was not doing shіt for a whole movie while moaning about his dad being unhappy with him.)
The Chitauri defeat wasn't dumb
Oh yes it was. Dumber than cop-out with droids from Phantom Menace - because there at least it made sense, since they were droids, not living creatures.
so yes the Mini-Sun thing was worse.
Only if you are ashamed of the comic books and the wondrous.
Right, Raimi's MJ is just bad.
Because she did not stole the show from the main hero and wasn't taking the focus from the main story. Sorry, this is not Iron Man 3. Character's girlfriend is not going to be star of the show here and she will not defeat the main bad guy, making the main hero look like an inept idiot.
If you expect films about paragons who need villains to drive their plots, maybe.
Isn't that a very accurate description of Captain America Winter Soldier? (Which I like.) Captain America - idealistic do-goooder. Winter Soldier - the most pivotal part of the movie. (Heck, his name was even in the title.) So you must hate that movie, then. (Oh, yes, I know, you can't hate it because it's MCU, therefore, none of those complaints apply to them.)
reply
share
samhmd-7489
8 years ago
Not really. His movies, even those that bombed in theaters, did great on home video, usually.
Which is my point, it time for a lot of his better movies to be seen as the great pieces they are.
Considering that everything in his plan was based solely on coincidences and personal decisions of different individuals, it is pretty complex.
No more than Joker in Dark Knight, no one complains there (and if they do it means they must be insulting Heath Ledger).
No bigger cop-out than "Shield is Hydra" thing, that was never implied in any of the movies before Winter Soldier.
The whole point of secrets is that you're not supposed to know about them.
I'm sorry that you are ashamed of scenes that lightheartedly illustrate hero moving from depression into happiness.
If the audience wasn't hypocritical over liking the Raindrops scene but not the Saturday Night Fever one I wouldn't care.
Oh yes it was. Dumber than cop-out with droids from Phantom Menace - because there at least it made sense, since they were droids, not living creatures.
The Chitauri troops were cyborgs, powered and controlled by the Mothership. They just didn't spoonfeed you like Star Wars did.
Only if you are ashamed of the comic books and the wondrous.
Wondrous would be making a mini-black hole to stop it or something, it's not dumping it in the river.
Because she did not stole the show from the main hero and wasn't taking the focus from the main story.
No, she just whined and complained and cheated on everyone.
Isn't that a very accurate description of Captain America Winter Soldier?
No, there the plot was set off by the heroes side being proactive in uncovering a conspiracy.
reply
share