Joined: 11 May 2009 Posts: 479 Location: up hill and down dale Country:
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:49 am Post subject:
bmwracer wrote:
Anyone going to see Captain America?
Looks rather meh.
Seems like a dull movie season so far... Nothing has piqued my interest.
Just saw this movie a few hours ago with, like, 12 family members. Totally not worth the ticket price in 3D. Amid the glut of superhero flicks I'd rate it fair to middling -- wasn't terrible but unexciting and forgettable, yes (except for the Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci characters). The whole thing felt like a retread of the 938492343 superhero mega-productions that have preceded this one; IMO Captain America functions best as an extended backstory for one of the Avengers. And I think I've seen enough of origin plots, WWII-era/Nazi revisionist plots, ker-pow! heroics, things blowing up, villain using a All-powerful Unstoppable Thingy that will help him TAKE!OVER!THE WORLD!!!, etc. etc. I guess the Law of Diminishing Returns applies to superhero franchises, too.
Still, the movie did raise a number of questions:
1) Why didn't Chris Evans' pants rip when he morphed into big, tall 'n' beefy Cap'n America?
2) Why, Hugo Weaving, why?
3) Isn't it just wrong for the actor who played the Human Torch to sign on as Capt. America? Both are characters in the same Marvelverse after all -- so what happens when Hollywood makes a Fantastic 4 + Avengers movie? Who's Chris Evans gonna pick to play? (Not that it would matter to me. The dude is CUTE. )
4) Can't a superhero be interesting without necessarily being morally conflicted?
5) Will Hollywood ever think of an Avengers vs. Justice League movie? And more importantly, WHO'S GONNA WIN???
Questions, questions.
---
@ beemer - Re the new Spidey trailer -- NICE. I think this is one superhero origin movie Imma catch in theaters after all.
@ Itazura ichiban - The Conan poster's looking fierce. Good tagline, too. I still don't get why the man is so averse to wearing armor. He can keep the red curtain between his legs, but surely a breastplate won't hurt? Or elbow guards at the very least?
Just saw this movie a few hours ago with, like, 12 family members. Totally not worth the ticket price in 3D.
3D flicks are THE most overrated gimmick since SenSurround for the movie Earthquake.
Quote:
1) Why didn't Chris Evans' pants rip when he morphed into big, tall 'n' beefy Cap'n America?
Like most drugs/treatments, they make men impotent.
Quote:
3) Isn't it just wrong for the actor who played the Human Torch to sign on as Capt. America? Both are characters in the same Marvelverse after all -- so what happens when Hollywood makes a Fantastic 4 + Avengers movie? Who's Chris Evans gonna pick to play? (Not that it would matter to me. The dude is CUTE. )
Probably because Fantastic Four was so forgettable... Very few people (except yourself) probably noticed.
Quote:
4) Can't a superhero be interesting without necessarily being morally conflicted?
Not in the Marvel Universe... Except maybe Howard the Duck.
Quote:
5) Will Hollywood ever think of an Avengers vs. Justice League movie? And more importantly, WHO'S GONNA WIN???
Marvel all the way, baby...!!!
Quote:
@ beemer - Re the new Spidey trailer -- NICE. I think this is one superhero origin movie Imma catch in theaters after all.
To see Peter Parker invent his famous web-shooters is worth the price of admission, IMO.
Joined: 11 May 2009 Posts: 479 Location: up hill and down dale Country:
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject:
bmwracer wrote:
3D flicks are THE most overrated gimmick since SenSurround for the movie Earthquake.
Only Avatar was worth seeing in 3D for me.
bmwracer wrote:
Not in the Marvel Universe... Except maybe Howard the Duck.
Funny. But I didn't mind the fact that Steve Rogers was just a straight-up good guy, with none of the character flaws of other superheroes -- like the growly, baggage-laden angst of Batman or the cheeky amorality of Iron Man. I actually liked him the way he was -- I just wish the character had, I dunno, more emotional heft I guess. But then again, Chris Evans ain't Bale. Or RDJ for that matter.
bmwracer wrote:
Like most drugs/treatments, they make men impotent.
Ahahahahaha That's not exactly what I meant. (I meant, why didn't his trousers rip when the legs grew in length and girth -- like with Bruce Banner.) The impotence side effect is an interesting notion, though.
bmwracer wrote:
To see Peter Parker invent his famous web-shooters is worth the price of admission, IMO.
Yeah, this ought to be interesting. And hopefully the process will look more believable than it did in the comics. I remember reading the comics in 6th grade and wishing Spidey would just have the web grow organically out of his wrists because having to constantly formulate the stuff in the lab seemed too much work. I guess I got my wish after all in the Raimi movies.
3D flicks are THE most overrated gimmick since SenSurround for the movie Earthquake.
Only Avatar was worth seeing in 3D for me.
Never had any interest in seeing that film... I got turned off by all the hype, I suppose.
Quote:
bmwracer wrote:
Not in the Marvel Universe... Except maybe Howard the Duck.
Funny. But I didn't mind the fact that Steve Rogers was just a straight-up good guy, with none of the character flaws of other superheroes -- like the growly, baggage-laden angst of Batman or the cheeky amorality of Iron Man. I actually liked him the way he was -- I just wish the character had, I dunno, more emotional heft I guess. But then again, Chris Evans ain't Bale. Or RDJ for that matter.
Speaking of Iron Man, I really hated the fact that he revealed his secret identity... That's superhero sacrilege, IMO: It takes away one of the key components in the superhero aura/mythos.
Quote:
bmwracer wrote:
Like most drugs/treatments, they make men impotent.
Ahahahahaha That's not exactly what I meant. (I meant, why didn't his trousers rip when the legs grew in length and girth -- like with Bruce Banner.) The impotence side effect is an interesting notion, though.
It'd be a great opportunity for Viagra/Cialis product placement.
Quote:
bmwracer wrote:
To see Peter Parker invent his famous web-shooters is worth the price of admission, IMO.
Yeah, this ought to be interesting. And hopefully the process will look more believable than it did in the comics. I remember reading the comics in 6th grade and wishing Spidey would just have the web grow organically out of his wrists because having to constantly formulate the stuff in the lab seemed too much work. I guess I got my wish after all in the Raimi movies.
Hmm, I don't know how much time they'll spend on him designing/developing his web shooters, but I hope they'll make him a lot smarter and less pathetic than the Raimi version...
Joined: 11 May 2009 Posts: 479 Location: up hill and down dale Country:
Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:52 pm Post subject:
bmwracer wrote:
Never had any interest in seeing that film... I got turned off by all the hype, I suppose.
If you're not a fan of Pocahontas-in-outer-space plots, at least give the movie a shot for the boffo special FX.
bmwracer wrote:
Speaking of Iron Man, I really hated the fact that he revealed his secret identity... That's superhero sacrilege, IMO: It takes away one of the key components in the superhero aura/mythos.
It may not exactly be canon, but it sort of made sense given Stark's flashy, exhibitionist personality. Whereas the very notion of blowing one's own cover would give someone like Bruce Wayne an aneurysm.
bmwracer wrote:
It'd be a great opportunity for Viagra/Cialis product placement.
Ha! But something tells me this sort of marketing ploy would work better in that reality show set in Hugh Hefner's mansion.
bmwracer wrote:
Hmm, I don't know how much time they'll spend on him designing/developing his web shooters, but I hope they'll make him a lot smarter and less pathetic than the Raimi version...
"Pathetic"? Heyyy I'm a big fan of the Raimi version! Maybe Spidey got a bit douchey in the third film (arguably the weakest of the lot), but the first two installments were pure crack. The main reason I'm anticipating the 2012 reboot is Andrew Garfield -- he's got the depth and talent to take the character to the deeper, darker, and (dare I say it?) creepier aspects of growing up.
Never had any interest in seeing that film... I got turned off by all the hype, I suppose.
If you're not a fan of Pocahontas-in-outer-space plots
Eeek, that doesn't sweeten the deal.
Quote:
bmwracer wrote:
Speaking of Iron Man, I really hated the fact that he revealed his secret identity... That's superhero sacrilege, IMO: It takes away one of the key components in the superhero aura/mythos.
It may not exactly be canon, but it sort of made sense given Stark's flashy, exhibitionist personality. Whereas the very notion of blowing one's own cover would give someone like Bruce Wayne an aneurysm.
True, but it contradicts the comic book... I'm a purist when it comes to those things, particularly Marvel.
Quote:
bmwracer wrote:
Hmm, I don't know how much time they'll spend on him designing/developing his web shooters, but I hope they'll make him a lot smarter and less pathetic than the Raimi version...
"Pathetic"? Heyyy I'm a big fan of the Raimi version! Maybe Spidey got a bit douchey in the third film (arguably the weakest of the lot), but the first two installments were pure crack. The main reason I'm anticipating the 2012 reboot is Andrew Garfield -- he's got the depth and talent to take the character to the deeper, darker, and (dare I say it?) creepier aspects of growing up.
Raimi focused waay too much on how down and out Parker was to the point of being pathetic and not much of Petey being very intelligent/ingenious... A dumbed-down Peter Parker, if you will.
I remember seeing it in a theatre when I was a kid but I had forgotten that Sessue Hayakawa played the pirate captain. I listened carefully whenever he was speaking and I have no idea what language he was speaking sounded like pure gibberish to me, but given his thick accent it might have been english!!
Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 3392 Location: peoples democratic republic of yorkshire Country:
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:09 am Post subject:
i watched the changeling tonight. when i first heard about this film i was hoping it might be a remake of the horror film with george c scott. alas it's something entirely different. still, thought it was an ok film. _________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Log in
Amid the glut of superhero flicks I'd rate it fair to middling -- wasn't terrible but unexciting and forgettable, yes (except for the Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci characters). The whole thing felt like a retread of the 938492343 superhero mega-productions that have preceded this one; IMO 
)
That's not exactly what I meant. 
And hopefully the process will look more believable than it did in the comics. I remember reading the comics in 6th grade and wishing Spidey would just have the web 
Maybe Spidey got a bit douchey in the third film (arguably the weakest of the lot), but the first two installments were pure crack. The main reason I'm anticipating the 2012 reboot is Andrew Garfield -- he's got the depth and talent to take the character to the deeper, darker, and (dare I say it?) creepier aspects of growing up. 
