• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Movies/TV Shows

The last three planet of the apes are really good... The last two in particular


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I saw Spiderman, and would agree with the above. Good movie, but compared to the other superhero movies, it's not like it was one of these "OMG must watch opening weekend" type flicks.
 
MindzEye said:
No CGI and all wire work, right?
Click to expand...

You keep misunderstanding.

I hate the comic movies that inevitably devolve into a pure CGI battle scene for like the last 20-30 minutes of the movie. The first Transformers was the first that I recall doing that, and though I hated the film from top to bottom, it became almost unbearable when it was just all out war and the images are literally too fast to even make out as you're watching. Then Avengers memorably did it, where it was a full on cartoon for a lengthy stretch. Batman v. Superman again, with that idiotic Doomsday battle. It's so formulaic, and the formula is utter shit.

Game of Thrones uses CGI, but tastefully, in moderation, and elegantly. There's a story. There isn't just chaos topping off a totally shitty, unoriginal piece of shit story. The Nolan Batman films were as good as it got. Not sure I can even really recall any FX in those, other than a bit in the last one.

Justice League looks like another shitty chapter in a long line of these plot-less films that exist only to rapidly hurl undistinguishable objects through the screen at you while blowing your eardrums out. There is no scene in the trailer that looks good. From the CGI heavy ones like Aquaman dropping an alien through the roof of a building and riding out the first floor like he surfed a wave through the door, to the "funny" ones like the Flash hanging out with Gordon after everyone else disappears. It's just so ugly, so corny. Crap.

So yeah, I wish they'd do a Spiderman film along the lines of the Nolan Batman movies where the subject matter is pretty serious, it's a likeable and believable SpiderMAN (not a Tobey Faguire or Garfield), and it isn't just endless fight scenes with things blowing up everywhere.

I suppose I have exited their demographic because I'm also 38 and it has probably passed me by, but arguably the best comic book movies ever were steeped in drama and adult themes, and it would be nice to see at least some of the films return to that model.

I'd love to use Logan as another example, but I haven't seen it yet and have heard amazing things.
 
I've seen the new Apes and Spidey, haven't seen Dunkirk yet. Spidey was ok, Apes was awesome.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
You keep misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

Nah, I keep ****ing with you. Subtle difference.

I hate the comic movies that inevitably devolve into a pure CGI battle scene for like the last 20-30 minutes of the movie. The first Transformers was the first that I recall doing that, and though I hated the film from top to bottom, it became almost unbearable when it was just all out war and the images are literally too fast to even make out as you're watching. Then Avengers memorably did it, where it was a full on cartoon for a lengthy stretch. Batman v. Superman again, with that idiotic Doomsday battle. It's so formulaic, and the formula is utter shit.
Click to expand...

Well yes, when a story revolves around characters that can perform absolutely incredible physical/mystical feats, it's going to require CGI. Doctor Strange without CGI is just a guy in fancy pijamas waving his hands around appropriating Asian culture. Also an excellent story though. The amount of CGI doesn't have an inverse relationship to the quality of the story. It just doesn't make up for a shitty story. But nobody argues that it does.

With that said, in those stories lacking in quality storylines (BvS is an excellent example here), the CGI battles are very, very clearly the pay off for putting down your 13 bucks, and are usually pretty entertaining.

Game of Thrones uses CGI, but tastefully, in moderation, and elegantly.
Click to expand...

Mainly due to lack of budget...they want to do a lot more CGI.

The Nolan Batman films were as good as it got. Not sure I can even really recall any FX in those, other than a bit in the last one.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, it's about a guy, in a suit with fancy tools. You don't need CGI to show what Batman can do. With that said, the amount of stroking the Nolan Batman trilogy gets is borderline nauseating. There are plot holes you can drive a tank through in all of them, that we all ignore because suspension of belief is a hallmark of comic book movies. They were excellent flicks, but let's not make them out to be something they're not. They're more realistic because Batman is a more realistic character to work with (for obvious reasons).

So yeah, I wish they'd do a Spiderman film along the lines of the Nolan Batman movies where the subject matter is pretty serious, it's a likeable and believable SpiderMAN (not a Tobey Faguire or Garfield), and it isn't just endless fight scenes with things blowing up everywhere.
Click to expand...

Where I agree on the Spider"man" bit, I disagree with doing a Nolanized version of Spidey. We've already had the prevailing Spiderman themes beat to death in previous runs at the character (thus my uncle Ben comment). Easily the best parts of the previous Spiderman attempts was Spidey doing what he does best, shit talking while fighting over powered villains. There's no reason to get dark and gritty with Spidey.

I'd love to use Logan as another example, but I haven't seen it yet and have heard amazing things.
Click to expand...

Logan is a character built for that treatment though, and the source material for it (Old Man Logan) is a great story. Logan being something of a tortured soul (existing in an odd duality with his indestructible body) sets up for that type of adult themed treatment. Not all comic book characters have that, shit, most of them don't. There's nothing wrong with that.
 
MindzEye said:
Well yes, when a story revolves around characters that can perform absolutely incredible physical/mystical feats, it's going to require CGI. Doctor Strange without CGI is just a guy in fancy pijamas waving his hands around appropriating Asian culture. Also an excellent story though. The amount of CGI doesn't have an inverse relationship to the quality of the story. It just doesn't make up for a shitty story. But nobody argues that it does.

With that said, in those stories lacking in quality storylines (BvS is an excellent example here), the CGI battles are very, very clearly the pay off for putting down your 13 bucks, and are usually pretty entertaining.
Click to expand...

Those CGI battles aren't worth ten cents when the story is complete trash. Even the CGI sequences are garbage. Yeah, Doomsday is going to have a tough time incinerating Batman in close quarters. I mean, come the **** on. That was terrible. It actually made a bad movie even worse. There's no payoff for putting down money to see these types of films, not for me at least.



Mainly due to lack of budget...they want to do a lot more CGI.
Click to expand...

I'm sure every production would like to have a larger budget to do more of everything. I don't think GOT is hurting in the budget department. In fact, I know they're not.



Well yeah, it's about a guy, in a suit with fancy tools. You don't need CGI to show what Batman can do. With that said, the amount of stroking the Nolan Batman trilogy gets is borderline nauseating. There are plot holes you can drive a tank through in all of them, that we all ignore because suspension of belief is a hallmark of comic book movies. They were excellent flicks, but let's not make them out to be something they're not. They're more realistic because Batman is a more realistic character to work with (for obvious reasons).
Click to expand...

You don't think they could do Batman films with a ton more CGI? They could have Clayface as a villain, they could have Bats ziplining across the city scape like Spidey if they wanted. Sure, given that he's not superhuman, they don't need to, but that's beside the point. They don't need to have mindless 30 minute battle sequences bookended by terrible storytelling just because the characters have powers. I bet the viewing public enjoys seeing Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker, and Tony Stark almost as much as their alter egos. Build a strong story around these rich characters, rather than just showcase their powers with shitty FX.


Where I agree on the Spider"man" bit, I disagree with doing a Nolanized version of Spidey. We've already had the prevailing Spiderman themes beat to death in previous runs at the character (thus my uncle Ben comment). Easily the best parts of the previous Spiderman attempts was Spidey doing what he does best, shit talking while fighting over powered villains. There's no reason to get dark and gritty with Spidey.
Click to expand...

You don't always have to have the colorful G-rated Spidey either. The storylines of the 80s Spiderman books were amazingly adult and in some ways dark. Kingpin, Hobgoblin, the Rose, Kraven. These were some of the best Spidey stories ever. I 10000% agree that I never need to see another take on the Uncle Ben story ever again, but there are so many awesome types of stories they could tell that don't need to be tied to that. They could do an organized crime story with amped up villains and realistic family/friend ties weaved in.



Logan is a character built for that treatment though, and the source material for it (Old Man Logan) is a great story. Logan being something of a tortured soul (existing in an odd duality with his indestructible body) sets up for that type of adult themed treatment. Not all comic book characters have that, shit, most of them don't. There's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with it. They don't all need to be moody and dark. Just as they don't all need to be packed with explosions and nuclear bombs and endless fight sequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top