MovieChat Forums > DarthRoger > Replies
DarthRoger's Replies
I'm finally seeing it tonight, so I'll let you know my unvarnished opinion on Aquaman tomorrow. I hope it's as good as advertised. I'm mainly a Marvelhead but would love to see DC movies that are good.
Tony could be the hero but if so, my money says he gets killed along with Thanos. It could happen but then there's that twist from Avengers 3 where he and Pepper kept talking about having a baby. Makes things more interesting.
I'd love to see Ant-Man be the big hero in End Game. A great character!
I like the idea of Jon Hamm but I bet Karl Urban would be great in the role. He has more of an intensity about him.
Disclaimer: I don't take anything you posted in response to my post as an attack. I appreciate the insight. These are the kinds of conversations I like having. We should have these conversations and I respect your point of view.
To keep perspective, I didn't state her "40 year old white dude" comment was based on a comic book movie, I stated that it was insulting and stupid. I know she was talking about critics for A Wrinkle In Time [which bombed] but making that statement when the primary dollar demographic for comic book movies is the 40 something white males (and white females, I might add), is not bright when you're supposedly the star of an upcoming comic book movie. It made her look bad.
Also in her continuing statement you framed about "[Audiences] are not allowed enough chances to read public discourse on these films by the people that the films were made for..." is perplexing. According to her logic, there has to be a conversation first about a movie and ONLY the people she feels it was made for can have that conversation? That's like saying that white/latino/asian people can't have an opinion on movies like Blade, Coming to America or Black Panther because of their color. It's a stupid statement and even on RT, the critics were a lot kinder than the public who went to see A Wrinkle In Time (42% critical vs 28% audience).
The whole argument about "diversity" is kind of a sham, at least in my opinion. The MCU has strong female characters that are awesome. Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Gamora, Nebula, Okoye, Hela.. these are all kick ass characters. They are loved because of who they are as individuals, not due to their gender or ethnicity.
As for Wonder Woman, I love it! The only person I remember making "sexist" comments about WW was director James Cameron, who has a bad habit of foot-in-mouth disease when it comes to comic book movies.
Just saying on that too. :)
What has kept the MCU on track is their vision, as laid out by Kevin Feige. As long as Disney doesn't interfere (as they did with Iron Man 3), then the MCU's future will be sound. I worry that Kevin might be swayed by some of the SJW culture that's infected properties like Star Wars. It's a reason to be concerned. I won't push a panic button unless Feige allows such a thing to happen. They just need to keep politics and religion out of the MCU. Their movie have brought all types of people together and it's good to see at a time when so many are at each other's throats. They have been able to do that by staying out of the political/social messages act.
As for Larson, I thought the whole "smiling" brouhaha was nothing burger but the "40 year old white male" comment was insulting and stupid. 40 year old white males are the primary comic book and comic book movie consumer. To say something like that made her look kind of petty and foolish. Maybe she's better than that and I sure hope so.
Like I said, I'll go see the movie and be first up to heap praise on Larson, if she does a good job.
I didn't mention Smilegate, which I thought (and posted on this site) was a silly talking point.
The trailers just haven't excited and it seems there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen on this movie (2 directors, a lot of script rewrites, etc.) but I'll still go see it and give an honest opinion.
I hope the finally product is good but Larson needs to try and at least make herself somewhat likable to fans. The snapshot from Twitter of her drinking wine, wearing sunglasses and holding the purse with the name BRIE on it, with the post "R.I.P. Stan Lee" was a horrendous PR mistake.
Just saying.
Captain Marvel is not going to blow anything out of the water, least of all Aquaman. I'm a huge Marvelhead and the trailers for CM are dull. Not to mention, the lead actress is pretty much a sour person and doesn't seem to even want to be in the movie. It will make money but no where near what Aquaman is making.
Now, Avengers 4 and Spider-man should be great. I just don't want people to lump in Captain Marvel with those movies as being worthy of praise.
I've no faith that CM will be good. It will make money but in the $500-600 million range. Not a lot of fans will like it.
All the points you make are why the show failed.
The only reason it was brought back from the crypt was to take shots at the current administration and it did so in a rather blatant way. It's funny these networks think a bygone show like Murphy Brown (Part 2) is going to be relevant when it plays into stereotypes and assumes the worst of half the viewing public. It's a lens into how these people live in an echo chamber and don't have a clue that the average American finds their characterization deeply insulting.
Script writers on these shows don't know the meaning of subtlety. They are all true believers in their causes, comedy be damned.
It combines elements of the comics Thor and Planet Hulk and does so in a fun way. This is currently #6 in my favorite MCU movies.
1. Captain America: Civil War
2. Avengers: Infinity War
3. Captain America: Winter Soldier
4. Avengers
5. Guardians of the Galaxy
6. Thor: Ragnarok
7. Iron Man
8. Ant-Man
9. Spider-man Homecoming
10. Guardian of the Galaxy, Vol. 2
The term "haunting score" is ideal. The music in that film is so emotionally powerful and captures the desperation of that time.
He's amazing. He brings polish and intensity to every role he plays. His portrayal of SS officer Amon Goth was especially chilling in Schindler's List.
I bet this hits one billion or at least comes really close. A big win for WB and the DCEU!
This movie was more like Harris's RED DRAGON than the actual movie by that name. I enjoyed it and it's still the better version of the original story, although I can never say anything bad about Ralph Fiennes.
Now 9% "positive" on RT as of now (1/3/19). It appears that 4 critics liked it. I'm wondering who these critics are and if they saw the same movie the other 52 reviewers saw.
Quite frankly, the only thing that's funny to me is that Will Ferrell starred in such a bomb. He's beyond his comedic stage and his moment. His tired gags are so predicable.
That was Charlie, when he was explaining spirits of different religious folklore.
I think the difference is that Wes Anderson's movies (which I love!) are supposed to be "quirky" and have a surreal kind of feel to them. I think Anderson gives you interesting vistas to look at but also fills them with intriguing characters, like Steve Zissou. I understand that Anderson's movies are linked but they still take place in different eras.
I haven't seen this show yet, although I've been planning on watching. Based on the problems you've outlined above, I'm less inclined to watch.
Though I understand shows like Legion are based on comic books, there's still a point where your ability to accept something absurd hits a wall. Continuity and common sense are big deals to me. I've quit watching shows because they'd create some far-fetched scenario to add a "shock factor" to a season's ending, when doing so was unnecessary.
Guess we can blame Breaking Bad. Ever since BB, all these new series writers feel like they have to have some twisted ending that leaves you speechless and keeps you on edge until the next season. It's an effective - although lazy - gimmick to make people tune in and keep watching a story that's going nowhere. Look no further than Bloodline as an example. Lots of shock but very little "there, there!"
What writers fail to realize about BB, was that the shocking endings on that series ALWAYS were part of the overarching story. They were't there just to shock. They aren't going to be able to cover for poor story telling on these other shows by just giving us a shock every now and then.
It's my favorite Hitchcock movie. Better than Vertigo, The Birds and even Psycho (although it's super close).
You never really know. Her sister says "Oh my God, what is that?!?" when they are fleeing the hospital. The wife at the house mutters the words "Mom?" before she seats herself in a burning car, so that's not necessarily a moment of fear. I also mentioned inducing psychosis/euphoria over their victims, so it may not be just using fear as a stimulant. It could just be some sort of overpowering emotion or vision.
My thoughts above are speculation at best and guesses at worst.