Post: #51

(09-18-2018 07:51 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Now for the craptastic trailer :




If only the like / unlike ratio wasn't going to be altered to propagandize the film...

Has anyone ever explored how much YouTube will mess with like/unlike ratios to get the "correct" number?

Post: #52

^^^ Those FX aren't very special. Looks like some kid watched an Andrew Kramer tutorial and decided to give it a try...

Post: #53

My first reaction to the CM trailer was amazement that this powerful entity from the cosmos develops a nails-on-chalkboard vocal fry as soon as she lands on earth.

Post: #54

Definitely not an impressive trailer. It was only 2 minutes and could barely make it through that.

Post: #55

Just a friendly reminder that at the touch of a button you have the whole history of cinema to explore and you never have to watch another modern film, when an even average film from 30 years ago and higher highs and higher lows than what we get now.

I didn't read fiction as a kid, but consumed newspaper and gaming magazines front to back, and only recently as an adult that I realised there was a whole world I never knew (and its the best of all the arts because it has had the longest to develop and mature)

Post: #56

(06-17-2018 01:49 PM)tobehero Wrote:  Also why is her costume green?

Green clothing makes you look like a loser. It's one of those silly but true things. You would NEVER see a major world leader wear anything green to a significant event. Dark blue is maturity, Red of course is power.

Post: #57

(06-17-2018 10:21 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  I was already going to boycott the film simply because someone hotter should have the role. WB in real life, but this is supposed to be fantasy.

Brie Larson really was the best that they could get for this role?

Honestly, when I saw the photos below I just started calling her Lieutenant Soccer Mom.

How is her ass actually that flat? It looks like they saran wrapped it. Her ass cannot naturally be that flat and if it were they would make it look not as flat. I guess they need to ensure that the yentas that watch this movie don't feel like they are being "unrealistically" portrayed by 'impossible to reach' Hollywood standards.



EDIT:

Also, what's with the orthopedic shoes?

Post: #58

(06-17-2018 05:29 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 04:36 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  One thing being left unsaid is why superhero films are so big today. It's because movies are dumbed down. Has anyone stopped to think movie-goers now have the mentality of 5-year-olds?

When I was growing up, the big-deal films were much more intellectually interesting and (ahem!) diverse. We got great -- and popular -- romantic comedies, intense dramas, and even teen movies that doubled as morality plays.

Why do we not have hit films on the level of "When Harry Met Sally" or "Big" anymore? Two reasons: The American public itself has gotten stupider -- as recent IQ studies show. And Hollywood now tries to reach an international audience instead of a domestic one, so all verbiage is simplified.

So there irony here is that Brie Larson is actually making simplistic films for a simpleton audience -- hence her disdain for critics, many of whom remember the golden days of movies. It's not like we're getting "Kramer Vs. Kramer" from her or "Ordinary People" (or even a brilliantly cutting comic film like "Back To School").

And just in case anyone wants to bring up "Room:" It's exploitative "victim porn" for women. There was a film roughly like this in the '80s called "Flowers In The Attic" that was redone as a Lifetime Network TV movie. My guess is "Room" will see the same fate.

The only reason "Room" got any awards is because the Oscars today only recognize three movie ideas: 1). Abused women; 2). Enslaved blacks; 3). Anything having to do with the Holocaust.

When was the last time a movie like the 6th Sense came out? Heck even The Matrix or No Country for Old Men! None of this trash today makes anyone think about anything at all. It's all mindless entertainment filth with zero depth in it.

Attention spans have gone down. Look at that new Predator movie, it was a joke, a bunch of explosions and fights in sequence to make a "movie."

The original Predator was a work of art.

Post: #59

(09-18-2018 11:14 AM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(09-18-2018 07:51 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  Now for the craptastic trailer :




If only the like / unlike ratio wasn't going to be altered to propagandize the film...

Has anyone ever explored how much YouTube will mess with like/unlike ratios to get the "correct" number?

Not YouTube, but...

Dude I know has a boy that works IT for the parent company of Rotten Tomatoes (Fandango maybe?). Confirmed that those ratings are rigged, which is obvious to anyone with a pulse. You know their steeze...all minority cast = 90%-100%....just happened with the Crazy Asians movie..any non slapstick Black flick, etc.

Post: #60

(06-17-2018 09:59 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  All it would take to destroy society would be for white "dudes" to go on strike for a few weeks during a major power outage in a metropolitan area. After everything was looted and nearly every woman was assaulted, bitches like this would be crying for white "dudes" (like that old bat on the subway who was featured on a different thread).

Dude Shrugged.

Post: #61

There's still some good movies being made but they don't get the publicity. Watched MI the other day, I enjoyed it, though to be fair I've been a fan of a lot of Tom Cruise movies over the past decade. A Quiet Place was quite good as it was realistic in how stupid the women in the movie were and the man too. Den of Thieves was alright i guess, can't remember much else. TV Shows are just outdoing films at the moment.

Post: #62

(09-18-2018 03:49 PM)Bill Brasky Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 10:21 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  I was already going to boycott the film simply because someone hotter should have the role. WB in real life, but this is supposed to be fantasy.

Brie Larson really was the best that they could get for this role?

Honestly, when I saw the photos below I just started calling her Lieutenant Soccer Mom.

How is her ass actually that flat? It looks like they saran wrapped it. Her ass cannot naturally be that flat and if it were they would make it look not as flat. I guess they need to ensure that the yentas that watch this movie don't feel like they are being "unrealistically" portrayed by 'impossible to reach' Hollywood standards.



EDIT:

Also, what's with the orthopedic shoes?

With many of the old MCU actors being phased out next year (most notably Robert Downey Jr., but I'm not convinced we'll see much more of Captain America, Thor etc. either - hell, even Black Widow and Scarlet Witch, both a hell of a lot sexier than this Captain Marvel, might get the boot), I imagine this could very well be the first step towards upping the SJW game in Marvel movies.
Seems like financial suicide though - even DC with their inferior recent movies knew how to pick a sexy and pleasant Wonder Woman.

Post: #63

(06-17-2018 10:21 AM)beta_plus Wrote:  Honestly, when I saw the photos below I just started calling her Lieutenant Soccer Mom.

Post: #64

(09-18-2018 08:20 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  <snip>
Even comics fans (of which I am one) are sick of superhero movies at this point. You know what? This won't come as a surprise to many, but these characters actually work much, much better on paper! Bringing them to the big screen was novel and cool for a couple of years but all the time you had this nagging feeling that something wasn't quite right!;

<snip>

So right.

The Batman movie in the late 80s, which to my memory kicked off the blockbuster superhero movie genre, did something different with Batman. Tim Burton kept Batman in the dark at all times. In the dark, the costume is believable. Before that, he was still walking around in broad daylight, in comics and tv.

Paper, it's all good. Artist can paint his own mood. But broad daylight? Needs to be dark. This Marvel girl looks silly on the subway track in this costume. Put her in the dark, at least we can suspend out disbelief. Instead we must believe this flat ass basic chick can save people?

Post: #65

(06-17-2018 10:29 AM)kinjutsu Wrote:  Everyone here knows she got the Oscar on her knees like the rest of them.

She's the new "Jennifer Lawrence". Mildly attractive, but definitely not a smoke show. Puffed up by the media that she's hot etc. Same thing can be said for Daisy Ridley, Emma Stone(woof).

Vanity Fair had Jennifer Lawrence undertake a lie detector test post-#MeToo.





Naturally, they did not ask the question all of us would have: "How many dicks did you suck to get to the top?"

Lawrence and Brie Larson are not the worst actresses you will see, but they have absolutely nothing on a Daniel Day-Lewis, Tom Hanks, or Meryl Streep (who is actually a decent actress, irrespective of her personal hypocrisies and atrocious politics).

Post: #66

Ask her this question - Would you rather have sex with Harvey and a few dozen other gross Jewish men in exchange for your career, fame and net worth, or would you rather be a waitress at Denny's?

Post: #67

We talk about 2008 - 2011.

Well, that was when smart phones came out and social media reached critical mass.

Also bear in mind what George Lucas said about how the possibilities of CGI when he first came across it blew his mind.
Bear in mind the piss take movie magazine meme in 1999 - "with hi tech special effects.. that still look kind of fake!".

But have you ever noticed that we've gone from hordes of extras filmed in exotic locations to just.. hordes of CGI and yet the budgets remain the same? The SAME amount of money.

I remember watching the end of "Prince of Persia" in a cafe somewhere.

Nix the special effects - they're actually shit, unbelievable and will date even worse.
It was just Jake Gylenhaal, Ben Kingsley and the bird-of-the-day walking around a green screen doing their worst speechifying and emoting - "NOOOoooOOOO!" "GRRRRRRRaaaaaHHH!"
Just bad pantomime.

These films are future kitsch.

And yet the Hollywood execs are paying themselves the same money, if not more.
Everything goes to shit while those at the top actually do less and less whilst reaping the rewards.
Hillary Clinton world on steroids.

Post: #68

(09-19-2018 01:16 AM)Bienvenuto Wrote:  We talk about 2008 - 2011.

Well, that was when smart phones came out and social media reached critical mass.

Also bear in mind what George Lucas said about how the possibilities of CGI when he first came across it blew his mind.
Bear in mind the piss take movie magazine meme in 1999 - "with hi tech special effects.. that still look kind of fake!".

But have you ever noticed that we've gone from hordes of extras filmed in exotic locations to just.. hordes of CGI and yet the budgets remain the same? The SAME amount of money.

I remember watching the end of "Prince of Persia" in a cafe somewhere.

Nix the special effects - they're actually shit, unbelievable and will date even worse.
It was just Jake Gylenhaal, Ben Kingsley and the bird-of-the-day walking around a green screen doing their worst speechifying and emoting - "NOOOoooOOOO!" "GRRRRRRRaaaaaHHH!"
Just bad pantomime.

These films are future kitsch.

And yet the Hollywood execs are paying themselves the same money, if not more.
Everything goes to shit while those at the top actually do less and less whilst reaping the rewards.
Hillary Clinton world on steroids.

Slightly off-topic but relevant I think in terms of contrasting modern crap against the films of yesteryear that we've all been talking about;

One of my faves of all time is 'The Vikings' (1958). If it's on TV, I'll sit and watch it to the end every time and enjoy it just as much as ever.

All sets, props etc. were built for the film. Extras were real people (locals) naturally.

One of the stand-out scenes (which was really supposed to be incidental to the movie) was the one where Kirk Douglas (as Ragnar) walks around the longship using the oars as it's returning home from a raid.

Leaving aside the fact that Kirk was 40 (and actually older than his on-screen father (Ernest Borgnine!))when he did this stunt, there's the fact that the magnificent ship he was skipping round was built for the movie using blueprints of an actual Viking longship salvaged by a museum in Norway! You just don't get that level of care and investment in an Avengers film!

The viking funeral scene where the ship was set on fire with arrows had to be done for real in one take. Actors were trained to fire their arrows on time but one of them got excited and fired early! Luckily, it was a great shot and hit the sail setting it alight, with the other arrows following behind. The director loved the result.

Again, you don't get serendipitous results such as this in 'Pacific Rim: Uprising'! They just piss about on computers till they get what they want.

The whole film is seeped in love for the history and lore. Years were spent researching the period before filming took place. Yeah, modern limp-wristed historians may sniff at parts of the movie, but for me, it captures the feel and mythos of viking sagas perfectly.

Yeah, Bienvenuto makes a great point about what exactly money is being spent on these days, what with everything being created on computers. These old films (Vikings, Spartacus, Cleopatra, Ben-Hur) using actual locations, real people and props would cost a fortune now (but be worth every penny).

EDIT: Also, how baggy is Brie's crotch on that stupid costume! I know we can't expect a perfect camel-toe on a superhero movie, but what in the hell does she need all that crotch room for!

Post: #69

Remember the ridiculous CGI monkeys in the last Indiana Jones movie? That to me symbolizes the death of commercial film making as we once knew it.

Post: #70

I would not normally post a mere YouTube clip that is a mere reaction to a mere trailer.
Yet this guy echoes similar ideas to what I had.

The CM trailer is not engaging, entertaining nor inspiring.
They're attempting to introduce a lesser known character, while giving the audience little to care about.
All the while. What is the plot, point or the 'pièce de résistance' that sets this film apart from all the other comic book movies...?

Knowing full well there will probably be another whole litany of crap trailers to come...

Post: #71

(09-19-2018 08:40 AM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  I would not normally post a mere YouTube clip that is a mere reaction to a mere trailer.
Yet this guy echoes similar ideas to what I had.

The CM trailer is not engaging, entertaining nor inspiring.
They're attempting to introduce a lesser known character, while giving the audience little to care about.
All the while. What is the plot, point or the 'pièce de résistance' that sets this film apart from all the other comic book movies...?

Knowing full well there will probably be another whole litany of crap trailers to come...

I know. At this rate, I don't think a boycott will be necessary.

Post: #72

should've used the ms marvel outfit!

Post: #73

(09-19-2018 04:24 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  You just don't get that level of care and investment in an Avengers film!

At least The Mission Impossible films are for people who still want to see (mostly) practical effects and real stunts. The problem is, now that we can't tell what's done with CGI and not CGI it's hard to really appreciate it anymore. You have to be told it's not CGI but your brain kind of expects it to be, or at least some of it. And in MI I'm pretty sure there's tons of digital wire-removal going on and maybe some digital framerate speedup in the carchases.

(09-19-2018 04:24 AM)Richard Turpin Wrote:  EDIT: Also, how baggy is Brie's crotch on that stupid costume! I know we can't expect a perfect camel-toe on a superhero movie, but what in the hell does she need all that crotch room for!

Comic book / sci-fi costume designs are shockingly bad these days. Nobody has any taste anymore in the art department.

Post: #74

(09-19-2018 10:03 AM)questor70 Wrote:  At least The Mission Impossible films are for people who still want to see (mostly) practical effects and real stunts. The problem is, now that we can't tell what's done with CGI and not CGI it's hard to really appreciate it anymore. You have to be told it's not CGI but your brain kind of expects it to be, or at least some of it. And in MI I'm pretty sure there's tons of digital wire-removal going on and maybe some digital framerate speedup in the carchases.

Yeah, the MI films are a rare exception and despite my recent distaste for Hollywood I still have time for those films. I haven't seen the latest one but it sounds like a winner. Tom Cruise is one of the few remaining legitimate movie-stars as well (along with Gibson and Eastwood).

I've nothing against CGI and new technology as such, but like most people I get tired of the over-reliance directors have for it. The MI films use it of course but a lot of the time as you say it's just to erase out safety lines and stuff like that. So by still employing stunt-men (or stunt 'actors' in the form of Cruise) at least the film still retains some heart and authenticity. It's a hard thing to clarify, but you know it when you see it.

Post: #75

You would think for a superhero role they would have given her a personal trainer and not go into production with a skinny fat 6

Bitch got nothing on Wonderwoman