The Movie Thread Reloaded

[Pat]

I'm wondering if Marvel won't completely reboot the MCU at some point. That would allow them to recast their tentpole characters, and properly integrate Fantastic Four and X-Men from day one.

Between all the alternate timelines and multi-verses they shouldn't have any trouble introducing "new" versions of old characters. I'm surprised that they haven't announced any plans for an X-Men X-Force movie.

The first hint will be s casting call looking for actors with tiny feet.

[Shrieking Banshee]

Interesting. The first phase were some of my least favorite, mostly because they were generic origin stories - which I found dull. The Avengers was quite good, but where I thought the series got the most interesting was when it started branching out. I found the later solo movies the most interesting because they had more distinct style and difference, and got out of being generic origin stories.

Then you have a much higher threshold for repitition then I do. Its like watching the same movie with 90% repeats and 10% original footage.

Ant man is a marvel film with a dash of hiest
Captain america is a marvel film with a dash of spy thriller (emphasis on dash)
Spiderman is fucking nothing the movie and has butfuck anything to do with Spiderman or his themes.

This is Malibu stacey with a new hat. Yes the original series malibu stacey didn't come with a hat but it was by itself original.

For example, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a generic superhero story

Its a largely generic hero story - IN SPAAAAACE!

Villian, Music, Cinematography, Dialoge, Artstyle, Story Structure....All largely the same and executed the same way. I guess there are less superpowers.

Doctor Strange is a standard-ish origin story, it at least was really visually distinct and creative.

This is where I will heavily differ. I really hate how marvel does its special effects, with a focus on busy visually blobby effects (because those are easier to do through disposable render farms in korea).

Compare The original spiderman films to any marvel film if you want a example of something that is executed and feels different. In terms of music choice, dialogue, effects etc.

I think we have had this exact discussion as before, and I called the Marvel films as the Activision blizzard to Michael bays Electronic Arts.

Both shallow and formulaic, but AB general attracts a larger audience through superior (yet still shallow) execution of mass appeal. Also they both suck up to china.

[oggsmash]

Interesting. The first phase were some of my least favorite, mostly because they were generic origin stories - which I found dull. The Avengers was quite good, but where I thought the series got the most interesting was when it started branching out. I found the later solo movies the most interesting because they had more distinct style and difference, and got out of being generic origin stories.

Then you have a much higher threshold for repitition then I do. Its like watching the same movie with 90% repeats and 10% original footage.

Ant man is a marvel film with a dash of hiest
Captain america is a marvel film with a dash of spy thriller (emphasis on dash)
Spiderman is fucking nothing the movie and has butfuck anything to do with Spiderman or his themes.

This is Malibu stacey with a new hat. Yes the original series malibu stacey didn't come with a hat but it was by itself original.

For example, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a generic superhero story

Its a largely generic hero story - IN SPAAAAACE!

Villian, Music, Cinematography, Dialoge, Artstyle, Story Structure....All largely the same and executed the same way. I guess there are less superpowers.

Doctor Strange is a standard-ish origin story, it at least was really visually distinct and creative.

This is where I will heavily differ. I really hate how marvel does its special effects, with a focus on busy visually blobby effects (because those are easier to do through disposable render farms in korea).

Compare The original spiderman films to any marvel film if you want a example of something that is executed and feels different. In terms of music choice, dialogue, effects etc.

I think we have had this exact discussion as before, and I called the Marvel films as the Activision blizzard to Michael bays Electronic Arts.

Both shallow and formulaic, but AB general attracts a larger audience through superior (yet still shallow) execution of mass appeal. Also they both suck up to china.

  I have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen.   Now if you were a marvel fan as a youngster, maybe not the case.  I am assuming you did not grow up in the USA on marvel comics (and spin off cartoons and so forth).   The movies were in effect the world's most expensive TV series that was able to absolutely hijack nostalgia and apply it for people who grew up in the 70's,80's and 90's on Marvel and similar productions comic books. 

   That said, the run is over for me.  I saw the infinity thing to a close, but I am likely done with marvel movies from here on out.  I suspect if they end up on some tv channel I surf I may watch one, but since they are likely to be held hostage on Disney channel for perpetuity, not likely I see another one.    I agree about the repetition, I was sucked in from a nostalgic gravity well I could not escape.

[Ratman_tf]

Interesting. The first phase were some of my least favorite, mostly because they were generic origin stories - which I found dull. The Avengers was quite good, but where I thought the series got the most interesting was when it started branching out. I found the later solo movies the most interesting because they had more distinct style and difference, and got out of being generic origin stories.

Then you have a much higher threshold for repitition then I do. Its like watching the same movie with 90% repeats and 10% original footage.

Ant man is a marvel film with a dash of hiest
Captain america is a marvel film with a dash of spy thriller (emphasis on dash)
Spiderman is fucking nothing the movie and has butfuck anything to do with Spiderman or his themes.

This is Malibu stacey with a new hat. Yes the original series malibu stacey didn't come with a hat but it was by itself original.

For example, Guardians of the Galaxy isn't a generic superhero story

Its a largely generic hero story - IN SPAAAAACE!

Villian, Music, Cinematography, Dialoge, Artstyle, Story Structure....All largely the same and executed the same way. I guess there are less superpowers.

Doctor Strange is a standard-ish origin story, it at least was really visually distinct and creative.

This is where I will heavily differ. I really hate how marvel does its special effects, with a focus on busy visually blobby effects (because those are easier to do through disposable render farms in korea).

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

[Wntrlnd]

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI

[Ratman_tf]

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI

Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.

Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.

[jhkim]

  I have a feeling the formula worked for him and me much better because we grew up reading marvel comics and saw MANY attempts that were pretty terrible to adapt those stories to tv and screen.   Now if you were a marvel fan as a youngster, maybe not the case.  I am assuming you did not grow up in the USA on marvel comics (and spin off cartoons and so forth).   The movies were in effect the world's most expensive TV series that was able to absolutely hijack nostalgia and apply it for people who grew up in the 70's,80's and 90's on Marvel and similar productions comic books.

Not exactly true for me. I only got into comics after I got to college - and the comics I got into were independent-ish comics like Sandman, Strangers in Paradise, and Astro City. I was exposed to more mainstream superhero comics as my son grew up, but that was alongside the MCU movies coming out so I wouldn't call it nostalgia.

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

I agree that CGI is hugely overused and serves as a crutch way too often. There are some later CGI movies I thought were good -- Forrest Gump and Fury Road come to mind, along with Gravity and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

But there's no really getting away from CGI within sci-fi/fantasy movies these days. In my experience, the MCU films have more practical effects than most other mainstream sci-fi/fantasy movies. I would add to the above list the first half of Captain America as an excellent use of CGI, though it was ruined by the dull second half.

[Wntrlnd]

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI

Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.

Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.

I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

[Omega]

I liked these movies but the idea that a picture would slowly start to disappear because the people in the picture no longer exists is pretty silly. Especially since time travel in these movies create alternate histories so it shouldn't matter to the time traveling Marty if the Marty in that universe doesn't exist.

But you are correct in that at least they are consistent and nobody does anything that's blatantly stupid.

In Back to the Future there are not different timelines. Changes in the past ripple forward to erase or modify the future. So the photo changes, eventually everything changes.

So it stays fairly consistent.

Another one is the original Time Machine movie. The traveler never does anything that contradicts or changes what has happened and seems to be careful in this. Taking things to help the future from the point he left, rather than trying to go back and undo anything.

[Ratman_tf]

I'm sick of GCI in general. It allows them too much freedom and the results are typically not as good (IMO) as practical effects.
I think the last movie with CGI that I thought was really good was the original Jurassic Park.

The best CGI are the ones you never notice. So I reckon there is a amount of movies out there you have watched and never noticed the CGI

Maybe. One example that I detest is the "roller coaster" shots, where the "camera" zooms in and around and through things. Compare the opening shot of the castle in Dark Crystal. Moody and full of wonder and interest - with the opening scene in Age of Resistance where the camera zooms quickly from the underground to the surface, and it's just a kalidescope of colors and shapes and I felt more bewildered than anything. Or the space combat from Wrath of Khan to any of the JJ Abrams Trek space combats.

Or all of the damn action scenes where the hero does or goes through incredibly comical action scenes. Everyone is Neo from the Matrix now, even people without powers or abilities. And the worst of it is when they lack weight and momentum. I laughed at Black Panther's car chase scene. I don't expect it was meant to be funny, and it set the tone of the film for me that this was an unintentional comedy.

I don't know gow you feel about youtube. Maybe you are one of those who have decided to boycott it. But here is a not to long video made about the subject. Take a look, and maybe you will come away with "Wait. THAT was CGI??!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24

That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.

[Omega]

I think they're really going to run the franchise into the ground with "Phase 4".

I sure hope so. Because that will give me hope that modern audiences can get sick of SOMETHING.

It took a while but looks like the mainstream have gotten tired of zombie movies and series finally as their interminable proliferation in everything hit saturation years ago.

We'll see the same with superhero shows just like the last two waves.

[Omega]

The live action Transformers series cured me of that hope.

The movies werent as prolific and were so forgettable. Much like the horrible TMNT efforts lately. The Transformers have seen some dramatic lowring in quality across the board.

Neanwhile in Japan its been puttering along with quite a few series, some of which have not made it to the US far as know like Beast Wars II and Beast Wars Neo, Scramble City and a few others.

[Omega]

That's not my point. I am not against CGI in principle. It's just another tool. My argument that the video seems to agree with, is that there's a lot of bad CGI. But maybe more importantly, my point is that it allows filmmakers the freedom to do things that maybe aren't a great idea.
Again, back to Age of Resistance as an example. Digitally removing the puppeteers is neat. Using CGI to make a Skeksis jump around like a hyperactive jack in the box? Terrible, no matter what effects technique they used, but CGI facilitated that bad decision.

CGI used for cleanup is fine, its no different from older methods like hand touching up to remove wires and the like..
CGI used for some effects is fine. Also no different from stop motion or minis. Except for the feeling of fakeness CGI has thats different from seeing a miniature.
CGI used for every damn thing is the problem. Some movies are more cartoon now than live action. Moreso because more companies are uing CGI not just for pose processing of small things, but in larger things as well and often with stupidly short deadlines. The Black Panther movie was a severe victim of this.

[jhkim]

CGI used for every damn thing is the problem. Some movies are more cartoon now than live action. Moreso because more companies are uing CGI not just for pose processing of small things, but in larger things as well and often with stupidly short deadlines. The Black Panther movie was a severe victim of this.

I agree that the Black Panther movie used way too much CGI. However, that trend is true of *all* mainstream fantasy and sci-fi movies. I feel that compared to its peers, the MCU tends to use *more* practical effects and stunts - and more often merges CGI and practical effects. Black Widow, for example, has a lot of good stunt work. Captain America also has had a lot of good stunt work -- the elevator fight in Winter Soldier is a classic.

There's still a lot of overuse of CGI, but that's true for the vast majority of mainstream fantasy/sci-fi, not something particular to the MCU.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I am not a big fan of CGI. Some movies have done it well. Some movies I enjoy despite the CGI, because otherwise the films are well crafted. But I find pretty consistently CGI creates this lighter than air effect where nothing seems to contact anything else. It feels very cartoony for me. I find it works best for things like lighting effects or energy effects . say you want to show someone showing a bolt of lightning from their finger, there it makes sense, but when it is other characters that actors are supposed to be interacting with or fighting with, or when its cars doing physically impossible things, it just takes me out of the movie: it is also not why I go to an action flick (I want to see real stunts in a movie, not CGI.

Lately I've been going back and watching a lot of 60s, 70s, and 80s movies, and really am enjoying the practical effects. Sometimes they fall well short of success, but even then they are at least something physical that is in the actor's hands.